Red Hat Linux Summit Day By Day

Joe Barr writes "NewsForge (also owned by OSTG) has complete coverage of the second annual Red Hat Summit, covering everything from the announcements of Mugshot and 108, Eben Moglen's inspirational and FUD-countering defense of free software and the GPL, to One Laptop Per Child's Nicholas Negroponte asserting that Intel is 'pissing on us.'" From the defense of Free Software: "He spoke primarily about freedom, and the American legacy inherent in free software. He reminded us that there was a day when the word 'yankee' was not automatically preceded by the word 'damn' or followed by the words 'go home.' In fact, he noted, it was once most often followed by the word ingenuity. He also spent a lot of time discussing patents, and explaining why they were added to our legal system so that the world's brightest, most creative people, would move here. Today, however, Moglen says, 'the patent system is an unbridled and unnecessary headache.' He then went on to describe how patents stifle innovation and creativity today. "

Comments

Intel

[suv4x4]

One Laptop Per Child's Nicholas Negroponte asserting that Intel is 'pissing on us.'

It'll be quicker to list the persons and organisations Intel's not pissing on or it'll take forever.

Re:Intel

[-Brodalco-]

They're pissing on consumers too... They Call it "Intel Viiv".

Re:Intel

[hdparm]

He is angry because Intel argued that MIT's machine design is lacking too many regular PC capabilities (which really was missing the whole point of this project), while at the same time trying to sell cheap PCs to the poor of this world.

Re:Intel

[suv4x4]

Maybe someone could actually just tell us how intel is 'pissing' on Negroponte?

Intel is actually competing with the OLPC project by producing the SUV of modern computing: big bulky boxes with CRT-s, the boxes have built-in UPS and "sand filters" and other special stuff.

The idea is Intel sells those to "internet caffee" shops in poor countries, while Negroponte makes Intel's efforts obsolete.

Intel and their CEO are publicaly making fun on Negroponte and his project and calling the $100 laptop "a useless gadget, people dont' want gadgets, they want computers".

Which like another poster noted is completely missing the point. Business is business, however, it wouldn't hurt Intel too much to behave decently in the sitation but they have just put their business interest in front of decency.

Unnecessary headache?

[packetmon]

the patent system is an unbridled and unnecessary headache. I think the patent system just needs revamping to conform to today's rapid changes. The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions. Without it many corporations with deep pockets could possibly collapse since their intellectual property would be carbon copied dissolving their efforts and work. I'm not one "for big business" on an abusive scale, but I can empathize with them. If I had my own business and paid someone a lot of money for their ideas and creations, I should be entitled to the benefits of them. Without someone to intervene, businesses could collapse, economical and industrial warfare would be off the meter. For someone in the business world to wish away the patenting system is irresponsible. Much to much economical damage could occur from it. When an economy is damaged to an extreme the snowball effect tends to lead to poverty, crime, disease, etc. I don't know where this guy's head was at when he made his comment.

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[madcow_bg]

I guess he means software patents. And everybody on /. knows they are *EVIL*.

No, really. They are. I am mathematican and I think it is just plain STUPID to have algorithms patented. So, I cannot think a certain way? Just because someone else did? And (with patents) even though I did it first???

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[Peter La Casse]

I think the patent system just needs revamping to conform to today's rapid changes. The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions. Without it many corporations with deep pockets could possibly collapse since their intellectual property would be carbon copied dissolving their efforts and work.

Corporations without products would suffer, but corporations with products would continue to make money as they always have: by selling products.

I don't think our society is at risk of running out of inventions or of having useful trade secrets being lost to the mists of time, and those are the reasons for the existence of the patent system.

If I had my own business and paid someone a lot of money for their ideas and creations, I should be entitled to the benefits of them.

Wouldn't you rather be able to build on the ideas and creations of others without paying them money? More realistically, wouldn't you rather be able to make use of your own ideas and creations without someone else stopping you by virtue of having a patent on similar ideas or creations?

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[packetmon]

When patenting "algorithms", most of the times those algorithms go hand in hand with a program. For example take RSA and PGP...

Anyone who "makes, uses, offers to sell or sells" a patented invention without the permission of the patent owner can be liable for patent infringement. The boundaries of the patent are defined in the claims portion of the patent. Accordingly, in order to determine whether a particular product, method or process infringes a patent, one must start with the text of the claims themselves. There are 40 claims in the RSA Patent, but only ten of them are independent claims. Independent claims are claims which do not incorporate other claims by reference. To infringe a dependent claim, one must first infringe the independent claim (or claims) incorporated by reference in the dependent claim. Conversely, if one does not infringe the independent claim(s) incorporated by the dependent claim, by definition one does not infringe the dependent claim. (source

In just about every case - and you can look them up instead of taking anyone's word for it - in just about all cases, the infringement when it comes down to algorithms and similar patents, comes from the use of the algorithm to mimic an already invented program. IANAL and I could honestly care less about patents, but I understand the need for them, and the damages that can arise from abolishing the patent system. Mod the post down, doesn't make a difference to me, common logic dictates the cause and effects of doing away with patents.

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[suv4x4]

For someone in the business world to wish away the patenting system is irresponsible. Much to much economical damage could occur from it.

Surely patents bring no economical damage right now? When you change the status quo, damage occurs, but it heals. You can either change the status quo or slowly die with your problems unsolved.

Patents sent away will bring less catastrophic results than one could imagine, companies will be a lot more secreteive about their works and release products early and often with less of a bigger innovations at a time (instead of spending 10 years researching , producing nothing). But the overal market, being free to come up with an idea and let it happen without beaing threatenet by a patent troll will liberate new forces in innovation as a whole.

Every little innovation a company does, the other companies can follow later. You could think it's not fair to the innovator, but it's gives them advantage of them being first on the market with a new product. And they've also used innovations from other companies as an integral part of their product.

There's of course also the medical industry. This is a whole topic on its own, but let me just say this: as a society, we're far less dependant on the medical industry for our regular lifes and survival than we think. The grand "innovations" that produce cancer "treatment" programs with over 70% lethality and a ridiculous cost (you could save hundreds of other people with) won't be missed.

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[packetmon]

Wouldn't you rather be able to build on the ideas and creations of others without paying them money? More realistically, wouldn't you rather be able to make use of your own ideas and creations without someone else stopping you by virtue of having a patent on similar ideas or creations? You're under the impression that I would be opposed to it. No I would not be opposed to someone creating something better, but give credit were credit is due. Whether via mention, joint venture, financially, etc. Again, most patents are just records that can be used to curtail abuse. I would hope most patent holders would be honored to have their ideas BETTERED instead of just carbon copied. One doesn't necessarily have to pay a patent holder, that is where permissions come in. Not everyone is charging to share patented information.

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[packetmon]

Wanna hear something offpost but sad. For most people that don't know, AZT (what is used to treat AIDS patients) was created by the US government. The dosage portions is patented by the pharm company. So guess what... Now one has to pay the pharm company for dosage information. Sad isn't it. Yes there is abuse, but all in all I would think there would be more abuse without it. I envision corporate warfare where facilities are firebombed, etc. Sabatoge galore. Call it extreme, but its nothing short of what big business has done in the past and continue to do now to some degree.

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[suv4x4]

in just about all cases, the infringement when it comes down to algorithms and similar patents, comes from the use of the algorithm to mimic an already invented program.

You should really check the JPEG patent case, the EOLAS patent case, the "algorithm" of e-commerce patent cases, the "three-columns interface" patent of Creative sues Apple case and more and more.

Half of those have no product involved. The other half has patented ridiculously basic stuff you can't call an algorithm even if you tried real hard. What they do, is wave their patents in court and go after the successful businesses, since they have the money to pay up the ransom.

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[suv4x4]

I envision corporate warfare where facilities are firebombed, etc. Sabatoge galore.

Bombing facilities would still be illegal, so the police/FBI/CIA would have the tools to fight with that.
Of course there will be some unpleasantr situations, but at least it won't be SO DAMN EASY to lock up knowledge in a box and extort the entire world for a ransom.

Once something is known, it can be used. This alone is worth all the negative sites of a patent-free world.

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[kfg]

I was sitting around one day, cold, damp and miserable. Then I had a brainstorm - fire is hot! Perhaps if I could find a way of creating a small fire at my own will I could get; and remain, dry and toasty.

The exhaltation soon passed, however, when I realized I wouldn't benefit from this because anybody else could use my idea as well.

And that's why we're all sitting here, cold, damp and miserable today when if we only had a patent system you could all be paying me a tribute to be dry and toasty.

Damn I hate being cold and damp. I wish I could just build a fire. You guys suck.

KFG

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[mickwd]

"Without it many corporations with deep pockets could possibly collapse since their intellectual property would be carbon copied dissolving their efforts and work."

Complete rubbish. What about copyright? What about simply not publishing the source code?

"For someone in the business world to wish away the patenting system is irresponsible."

Unless they live in Europe, of course. Or various other places which aren't the USA.

"Without someone to intervene, businesses could collapse, economical and industrial warfare would be off the meter."

".....Much to much economical damage could occur from it. When an economy is damaged to an extreme the snowball effect tends to lead to poverty, crime, disease, etc."

Disease ???

Well-trolled, sir. Congratulations on your +5, and shame on the moderators.

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[NetSettler]

The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions

Actually, the patent system does not protect ideas. No intellectual property does. The patent system protects a way of doing something useful and novel as a way of incentivizing creation. The problem is that ways of doing things are being cranked out so fast that their very speed of being cranked out is a prove of non-novelty, yet people are capitalizing them economically as if they were a proof of "infringement", which they often are not. That an idea about how to do something is easy to recreate should be proof of non-novelty and a defense against infringement, not a source of income. And that's why the software patent system is broken: because in the digital marketplace, a lot of the good algorithms are practically forced. It's like giving patents on addition and subtraction, when you know these ideas would come anyway.

I agree that software patents are an unnecessary headache, but I think it's because software patents are just different than things like material process patents, and I propose dealing with them very differently, more like the Nobel prizes, but I'm not so sure I have a strong position on patents in general, as long as they run in a reasonable period of time and don't start doing like copyrights where they keep getting extended all the time to last closer and closer to forever.

It bugs me though, that people move so fluidly between discussions of software patents and discussions of GPL as if it were all one kind of thing. Copyrights are protections of work done, and the likelihood that two people will write the same software system is close to zero, so there's little harm in protecting the expression of someone's program. If they want to let someone use it, let them. If they don't, let that person write something else.

I don't see that someone's copyright protection infringes the world, since recreation of an idea in another form is not an infringement, only direct copying. It's the fact that patents make even independent creation into an offense that makes it a problem where copyright is not. People who need to get around a copyright can just head to a clean room and work their way through. People who need to get around a patent can't even claim as a defense "we raised the authors on Alpha Centauri and they never heard of this patent, so couldn't have infringed it". In fact, I suspect the whole patent system will necessarily collapse as soon as we open trade relations with another intelligent race, who will surely have a different theory of what has and has not been invented and will think different things to have "prior art" (not to mention different things to be "obvious"). When is First Contact scheduled for again?

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[theonetruekeebler]

The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions.

Close, but there's a critical flaw in that oversimplification. Patents, like copyrights, were designed to strike a balance between the rights of creators and the rights of everybody else. But like any other legal fiction, the concept of "intellectual property" has been distorted far beyond its original intent, in the ways most profitable to those who already profit from it.

Patent systems were meant to help you protect your invention and make it exclusively yours for a limited time. After that, it belongs to everybody. You invent something, and make what money as you can, then a few years later it's just another thing anybody can use.

But patents expire. After you've been protected from us, the rest of us are now protected from you. This is good. If you don't think it is, consider what the world would be like if one big company that still held a patent on "the use of electrical signals to convey a message."

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[Peter La Casse]

most patents are just records that can be used to curtail abuse.

Cite? It looks like most patents are used to curtail competition. They're made as broad as possible to try to slow down or stop competitors, or to try to extract license fees from actual inventors.

How *should* patents be used, and what do you propose to move things in that direction?

I would hope most patent holders would be honored to have their ideas BETTERED instead of just carbon copied.

It would be nice if that were true, but most patent holders are corporations that don't have the ability to feel honored.

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[madcow_bg]

I see your point. IANAL also, but I think with my own head. Patenting ideas is stupid and always counterproductive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but RSA was invented BEFORE software patents came along. Furthermore, should EVERYTHING be patentable? Sure not, then why software? Software should be protected by copyright and only by copyright like every other piece of written work.

IMHO there are things that should not be protectable. For inctance, ideas. There is nothing on earth that will change my mind. So, if I read a book, I can do with MY ideas that the book just INSPIRED. End of story. If the author describes a patented invention, the invention is patented and protected, not the IDEA behind it. Patents are for PHYSICAL devices, not thoughts.

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[bill_mcgonigle]

So, I cannot think a certain way? Just because someone else did? And (with patents) even though I did it first???

How does that not describe the world of physical patents? Sure, you eventually have to go to the machine shop and grind some iron into the proper shape for your invention, but the thing being invented is really some great unique thought that somebody had. I don't know how the patents on it played out, but when one of Edison's scientists invented the light bulb the patent on making glass or hooking up electrodes isn't really interesting - what's patent-worthy is that some guy thought, "y'know, if we ran electricity through a resistive substance that exhibited black body radiation and suspended in a vaccuum, it could burn for a very long time and provide useful light."

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[Peter La Casse]

You mean wouldn't I like to steal their ideas?

What makes something your idea or my idea? Answer: if you or I know an idea, it is our idea.

How can anyone steal an idea? Answer: it can't be done. You sharing an idea with someone else doesn't eliminate your possession of that idea.

If anything is "stealing an idea", it's using patent law to prevent somebody from using an idea that they came up with independently.

Re:Unnecessary headache?

[madcow_bg]

The differnce is EXACTLY that I need to go to a machine shop and create the bloody thing.
I am for patents where they are needed. Can you give me ONE example of an algorithm that was invented BECAUSE of the patents, not DESPITE?
Anyway, patents used to be about inventions, not ideas. Patenting ideas is stupid. You know, Edison patented the light bulb, not the idea of electric light? See the difference? By the way, first electric (usable) light was made by the russian inventor Nikolai Tesla. Tesla Coils from RedAlert anyone?
Just... the bastards should keep the precious IP from ideas. They ARE NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY, nor should they. If you want to preserve your ideas, don't tell them to anyone.

By the way, I read somewhere that EU (officials) are going to abolish patents. Way to go, guys. :)

Redhat?

[flogic42]

If I was a ninja, I'd throw a dagger that would remove all the bugs in redhat, decapitate bill gates, free Tibet, and make me a sandwich before returning to my hand.

We need more Moglen talks

[nlago]

Free Software, at least for a part of this community, is a matter of principle, ethics, morality, you name it. Unfortunately, such approach to free software is currently not very fashionable.

Yet, I believe we are headed for some serious turbulence in the not-too-distant future, and the "use the best tool for the job" crowd, the "I use it because it is free (as in beer)" crowd or even the corporations currently making money from free software are not going to be the ones solving the difficult technical/legal problems that are to come for software to be truly free. It will be the idealistic crowd. And that's why we need, more than ever, a lot of evangelization.

According to TFA, Moglen's speech was the only one not "business"-focused; all the other speakers addressed "the wonders of open-source software", as a means of making money while involving a community (which means "reducing costs"). While there is nothing wrong with that, it is important to realize there are ethical reasons for some people to spend a lot of time on something that is not reverted to them in the form of money.

When difficulties arise, are these companies to back-up the free software community, investing developer and lawyer time, or are they going to go the short-term solution of reverting to the closed-software business model? While expecting moral decisions on the part of a company is unreal, it may make business sense to stick to free software, specially if there is a strong enough community behind it to actually have an influence on the market.

Of particular importance, IMHO, is the GPL v3 subject. A lot of ignorance, misinformation, prejudice and even FUD seems to be currently associated with GPL v3. The new GPL is going to be very important, but the community needs to understand it *correctly* ASAP. And I surely hope more *accurate* stuff is written about it, and Moglen is probably the person to do it.

Moglen's Deany Boppers

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy to picture the crowd whipped into a frenzy as Moglen screams, "Not only are we going to bring GPL to the masses, Bill Gates, we're going to Redmond and Silicon Valley and San Jose and New Delhi and Denmark, and we're going to farms in the heartland... And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the OS choice! Yeaaaaagggggh!!!"

Re:Redhat

[0racle]

Hm, they have Red Hats for Computers now.

Yankee, not proceeded by...

[hackwrench]

Rrally? When was that? I just bought a used copy of "The Great Conteporary Issues Series, Set I Vol. 7. 1978 edition, which has a newspaper article dated Nov 2, 1924, entitled "U.S. Indicted as the Most Lawless Country", byline Evans Clark.

Re:Yankee, not proceeded by...

[0racle]

The term "Damn Yankees" dates to at least the American Civil War and was used (obviously) by the southern rebels. It's funny that he decided to, while partnered with a company based in Raleigh, take issue with that particular phrase.

Pissing against the wind

[bstadil]

Right now Intel is mainly pissing against the wind or on an electric fence.

Why not just PODCAST each session, already?

[ivi]

I don't think ticket-sales would be any less, &
we could all partake, OK, as 1-way participants

Bandwidth cost an issue? So, BitTorrentCast 'em

Simple

Back to class!

[Ian.Waring]

Red Hat offer support subscriptions per *server*, not per user. And i'd get back to class pretty quickly - satellite server does not take away an obligation to buy support for your servers if you want Red Hat to respond to telephone calls, or to supply updates, on them. And Red Hat don't sell licenses at all - only support and update subscriptions.

Satellite server just acts as a cache to stop every machine pulling updates from Red Hat individually, plus the ability to do PIXie boots, to clone systems and, if needed, to be able to distribute updates without having the machines connected to the Internet - if that's what you want to do.

The differences between MS's business model and that for open source aren't that far apart - both provide functionality "as is" with no warranty nor obligation for "fitness for purpose" (if in doubt, read the EULA that came with Windows or Office). Red Hat charge for support and updates, and you can use support and install any supported version (even new ones as they arrive) while you have a valid subscription active; at the end of the subscription term, you're still free to use the software whether you renew your subcription or not (just don't expect support or updates any more if you don't pay). Microsoft sell a license to use a single major version, but expect you to pay again when a new version comes out, or to subscribe to Software Assurance to allow you to use new versions as they emerge. Very few customers tend to buy Software Assurance atm.

I always wonder why Microsoft don't sell subscriptions in the same way Red Hat do...

Ian W.

Re:Back to class!

[Ian.Waring]

Same applies. 1 subscription per machine. Having a Satellite server does not remove the need to have a basic or standard subscription for each one as well....

The Ad Running on this Page

[oktruckie]

Does anyone else find it ironic that dead center on a Red Hat Linux posting there is an advertisement for Microsoft? Somebody should be checking these things better.

Re:fuck eben moglen

[Elektroschock]

Moglen is a bad advocate, an ecclectic intellectual nightmare. But even worse, he sits on the shoulder of giants and is nothing but a braggart. His contributions are insignificant.

Richard Stallman is a radical but he is trustworthy.

A flamebait against Moglen? No.

The problem is that Moglen has a different ideology and free-rides on the free software movement and spreads his dangerous ideas.

I am an opponent of software patents but I believe that audiences will not realise that Moglen did *nothing* against US software patenting. So talking is nice. Action is better. The reason why there are still software patents in the US is that people like Moglen simulate action while there is no organised movement.