Slashdot Mirror
European Parliament To Exclude Free Software With FRAND
First time submitter jan.van.gent writes "The European Parliament is on the verge of adopting a directive reforming standards, reform which would introduce FRAND patent licensing terms, an undefined term which has been seen as a direct attack on the fundamental principles of Free and Open Source software. The Business Software Alliance has been very active trying to get FRAND terms into the directive."
That sounds kind of like what Microsoft did to Mosaic - we'll give you 10% of our IE revenue! I can see companies being tricksy about it, say, giving the FRAND part away for "free" to avoid paying royalties, but licensing the rest of the program for a fee.
In my perfect little world, software wouldn't be patentable, and we wouldn't have this problem.
DATABASE WOW WOW
The FSF's objection is precisely right. The standard of "reasonable" often used by government agencies and standards bodies is badly outdated, and based on a model ("all software written by commercial entities") that doesn't reflect the real world anymore. Standards are supposed to be for everybody's benefit, not just that of large corporations.
However making such changes is difficult (these bodies do not move quickly)—so if they're making the effort to update things, they should do it right, not just following the dictates of whatever lobby happens to be shoveling the most money at them.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
With no revenue, FOSS could freely use and distribute such patented software
Except that part of the freedom that comes with free software is the freedom to sell that software.
Palm trees and 8
The F in FRAND stands for "fair." FRAND is an approach used for decades by Standards committees that require any participant and any IP involved with a proposed Standard to offer open and uniform patent licensing to everyone (on the planet). This type of licensing is very much NOT the industry practice, where nearly every patent license is otherwise kept a secret and has to be painfully negotiated. There is nothing in FRAND, that I can see, that prohibits open source software or other open IP. In fact, Standards committees -- given a choice -- would far rather build in open IP to closed IP (even FRAND) into a Standard. Can someone knowledgable explain how FRAND in any way harms open source? I have worked extensively on two international Standards bodies, and have two of my own (non-patented) inventions now as ANSI standards.
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
...and if you're selling it, what's wrong with paying some royalties? There's free, as in libre, which is what you're talking about, and having associated costs doesn't affect that. Then there's free, as in beer, and having a royalty of x% of revenue doesn't affect that. It's only when you want to have your cake, and eat it, too, that there's a problem.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
We shouldn't accept "solutions" that allow software patents at all. Patents are wrong. They literally prohibit *you* from exploiting your *own* ideas, ideas that you came up with independently, just because someone else, who might be on the other side of the world, had the same idea a few years earlier and patented it.
It takes a strange worldview to claim that "reasonable" is an extreme position.
FRAND is reasonable. This is because private concerns exist. Without FRAND, we end up with lame standards that tiptoe around patents (like all Theora, and now WebM vs H.264). We also wouldn't have a worldwide GSM standard. Even with local variations, the standard is pretty reliable and useful. If each cell phone manufacturer and network only used standards which were not patent encumbered, we'd have a much less robust wireless market.
This is, like I said, because private concerns exist. If they didn't, then Free Software would be the way to go, mainly because it would be the only way to go. No one is locking out Free Software, unless the free software writers themselves prohibit the use of patented technologies. The FRAND patent holders will gladly (and in fact, are legally required to) allow Free Software users to obtain a license for the patents.
I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong about FS/OSS. They are fantastic, and I use plenty of such software. It's the ideological purity I'm addressing. It ignores the real world, and leads to absurd statements like that "reasonable" is something that "doesn't reflect the real world", which is a bit much. Especially considering the "real world" works just fine with FRAND, and so few people use free software that would are affected by FRAND issues that it's of insignificant impact.
Making such changes is easy. You just replace a few words here and there in the law and you're done.
The real problem is that the business interests would rather have a vaguely worded law that they can fight over in court,
instead of a reasoned discussion in public where people might have the opportunity to disagree with them in a meaningful way.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
'Reasonable' terms are often quite unreasonable. And the solution is very easy. DON'T allow patents on software. If they won't do that, there's also the solution of not having their standards directive allow for standards that require royalties, just as they don't allow for standards that refuse to grant someone a license. Also, there could be a requirement for an alternative that is FOSS compatible, such as a one time fee that allows for downstream users (which I believe is what happened with SAMBA)
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
"Fair and reasonable" means priced high enough that only big companies can afford it.
The problem is that "fair and reasonable" completely locks out all free software. This is not about ideology, the two concepts are mutually exclusive. A "reasonable" price between two giant corporations is too expensive for free software (and most small businesses). Can you afford to write free software when the reasonable license for a patent is in 5 digit figures?
I'm not totally against software patents. They are overused though. However my bigger concern is with standards tied to patents. That concept is utterly ridiculous. A standard that you must pay for to comply with? That defeats the entire purpose of having a standard, instead it is more like those pseudo-standards created by trade organizations (guilds, cabals, etc).
The problem is that "fair and reasonable" completely locks out all free software.
No, it doesn't. The only major software license I'm aware of that is completely locked out is GPLv3 software with the patent clause.
This is not about ideology, the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Only when people choose a license that is ideologically based, like the GPL.
A "reasonable" price between two giant corporations is too expensive for free software (and most small businesses).
Untrue. See H.264, GSM, and countless other FRAND standards.
They add cost, and slashdot types tend to see anything that costs any money at all as somehow impossible to ever pay. I honestly don't know how such people eat. Maybe they collect their food on the ground or something. For everyone else, we have little trouble finding a way to pay for the things we need, and that includes people and small organizations paying for things like rent, lights, promotions, communications, and licensing technology.
Did you know that a lot of software, including software from small companies, requires paying the programmers who write it? By your reasoning, this would be impossible.
Can you afford to write free software when the reasonable license for a patent is in 5 digit figures?
I dunno, ask Mozilla. They make millions per year, yet they act like they can't even pay the FREE license for H.264. That's nothing but pure ideology.
Making such changes is easy. You just replace a few words here and there in the law and you're done.
Email is still governed by the stored communications act (from the 1980s, IIRC). The FCC regulates interstate communications using laws from 1996, and those are the RECENT ones that are relevant. (common carrier laws are still based on common-law history going back to the 1800s).
It is rarely, if ever, easy to change law.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
A great many master artists learned their techniques through rote copying of previous artists. learning and imitation is going to happen. Its not bad.
Why does it matter? Just because an alternative isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not better. How often have software patents prevented reverse engineering? Does anyone even care anymore? Oh god, if I reverse engineer I'll get sued but if I try to make my own independent version I'll get sued as well. How many frivolous patent lawsuits are happening every single second? How much innovation is stiffed because anything you do is under fifty potential patents backed by a mountain of well paid lawyers?
You know what prevents reverse engineering? The cost of doing so successfully and the delay during which you get to exploit the market.
> Without patents the SW industry would collapse
How ever did it function in the dark years *before* software patents, then?
..and the GPLv3 was created just to prevent such end-run-arounds like 'tivoization.' what's the use of open source software when it's run with signed kernels/systems that keep the user it's supposed to empower out of the hardware?
Mozilla is funded by google. if anything they are a counterexample to your 'zomg have to pay the programmers right?' false dilemma.
one other thing, closed licenses are also 'ideological' in the sense they enforce particular expectations on users (you must pay for this, zomg pay my kids yale tuition, etc) which produce a world view on how they can empower themselves with the software.
Euros: We'll pass legislation that allows the BSA to rape you, but they have to be reasonable about it, no rectal bleeding and such.
FSF: No! Keep business dick out of the public's ass!
Euros: What if it's just half a dick. That's reasonable as a compromise, right? right?
Seriously. Someone making an outlandish and outright wrong demand isn't grounds for compromise, it's grounds for rejection.
Good luck with that. One patent stunted steam engine research for years. A patent pool on sewing machines stopped any improvement in the art for 14 years.
Those were before the modern, "rounded rectangles" state of patent trolling. I doubt it's possible to implement a non-trivial standard without stepping on someone's patents.
So, next best thing to pretending everyone else's patents don't exist is having everyone offer them up on FRAND terms.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Standards are chosen for the convenience of the producer of a patented service. I don't ask for H.264 video. I just want the content. If using a patent encumbered tech to deliver your goods makes business sense for you, then you should pay the royalty. But making the consumer pay a royalty again for the ability to consume is double charging, and doing so with monopoly restricted choices. If ATT wants to use GSM cell towers, fine. But why should the handset user pay a royalty to connect?
It's silly to claim that the harm to free software is negligible. The FOSS ecosystem can't work with royalty requirements. And most FOSS would go with patent free code if it were possible. But interoperability requires implementing standards. That's not a choice.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
That's a backwards question. Why *should* you be entitled for royalties from the work of others that took your idea and ran with it? There are billions of examples of non-protected ideas that people expand upon and make new stuff without entanglements. (Storywriting, architectural tropes, marketing styles, etc.)
The only reason you even think in ways that can word the question you raised is because the very notion of public domain has been beaten out of the public consciousness, and that's a grim state to be in.