Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Source Business Model Using Software Patents

Posted by kdawson on from the say-it-ain't-so dept.

Joe Barr writes "Robin Miller has an exclusive video interview with Larry Rosen and Fred Popowich this morning on Linux.com about their new open source business model which includes software patents in its DNA. Their motto is 'Free for open source, everyone else pays.' Larry Rosen was once legal counsel for the OSI." Linux.com and Slashdot share a corporate parent.

11 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Stallman's tactics for a new generation by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the things that I found interesting in reading Richard Stallman's account in Free as in Freedom of his early Free Software visions was that he was essentially using the copyright system against itself. The sealing of information was an offensive concept to him, but the system could be gamed to ensure freedom of access. It sounds like this innovators are doing the same with the patent system. Now, someone just needs to bend trademark law backwards.

    1. Re:Stallman's tactics for a new generation by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful
      but the system could be gamed to ensure freedom of access.

      Funny thing is that it's not really gaming the system at all:

      "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."


      It's hard to imagine how Free(TM) software doesn't promote the progress of science and useful arts. As such, it's using the system for the purpose it was originally intended for, albeit in an unusual way.
      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Stallman's tactics for a new generation by david_thornley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's wrong with trademark law? Patents prevent me from writing my own frippin' code. Copyrights prevent me from modifying and sharing code. Trademarks are a way of saying who the code is from, and giving proper credit is pretty much mandatory in the free and open source software movements.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:Stallman's tactics for a new generation by amorsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Apple Computers versus Apple Records battle shows how trademarks can stifle innovation. Apple Computers had to fight long and hard to expand its offerings. They deserved to have to fight long and hard. It is really confusing that there are two Apple's in the music business.
      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  2. Software patents are a bad. RMS is against them. by PaulGaskin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Software should be handled by copyright, not patent. I won't respect anyone's patent claims for software. I will respond with a big "Fuck You" to anyone who tells me I can't write and distribute a sequence of characters because they patented it.

    --
    Freedom is free.
  3. In their DNA, eh? by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ....business model which includes software patents in its DNA.

    Wow, they went to the trouble of getting gene therapy in order to have the text of their patents encoded in their DNA? That's some hard-core entrepeneurship!

    Oh, wait, sorry; that's just some dumbass, buzzword-bingo-bound expression that's not yet considered as cliché as "paradigm shift" or "think outside the box." Sorry to spoil the moment.

    --
    [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
  4. The wrong approach by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Their motto is 'Free for open source, everyone else pays.'"

    Sorry, but this is just plain wrong.

    What if Microsoft did this? They hold many thousands of patents -- what if they said "You can use our patents for free in closed proprietary applications, but open source must pay." People would be screaming bloody murder. Software patents are wrong and should be abolished. The fact that a patent is held by a "good" or "less evil" company doesn't make software patents any less wrong.

    .

    1. Re:The wrong approach by pembo13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am pretty sure they already do this

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    2. Re:The wrong approach by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am pretty sure they already do this. Here is a case which is close, but not exactly, that.

      Plenty more in google where that came from.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  5. Re:this has been tried before by superwiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If by "freedom" you mean the abstract concept for which it is Ok to kill people (and, naturally, do other lesser harmful things to them), then we have a problem. People distinguish between "free"-as-in-speech and free-as-in-"beer" for a reason. The reason is that ambiguity of context allows for mischaracterization of opponents' remarks (generally for the purpose of inflaming passions and curtailing reasonable discourse).

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  6. They ARE evil. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't care what Rosen says. Protection for software belongs in the copyright arena, NOT the patent arena.

    I have tried to keep an open mind for years now, and I have heard all the arguments before. And by now I have also seen the real results. And based on that, my opinion has not changed: software should not be patentable. Period.