Slashdot Mirror
European Commission Support of FRAND Licenses Hurts Open Standards
jrepin writes "While the UK has seen the light, the EU has actually gone backwards on open standards in recent times. The original European Interoperability Framework required royalty-free licensing, but what was doubtless a pretty intense wave of lobbying in Brussels overturned that, and EIF v2 ended up pushing FRAND, which effectively locks out open source — the whole point of the exercise. Shamefully, some parts of the European Commission are still attacking open source."
Many European citizens still think Europe will bring more democracy but it mostly brings more power to corporate lobbies.
Whats the betting that the rich closed source US software venders that managed to secretly get this through
pay either no tax or just a gesture contribution like starbucks etc yet somehow sell billions of pounds/euros/dollors worth
of mostly crap software into the EU, So sell here then pay tax here!, As for patents on software in general these MUST
be abolished either completly OR have a very short life say 2 years with no extensions.
As for copyrights thats another area that desperatly needs to be re-thought.
According to the article, there are [still] no software patents in the EU. So theoretically, any FRAND claims of software patents should be ignored. Of course, software patent holders never say "these are software patents." They just say "patents." It'll be interesting how initial claims of this sort will work out.
The author starts with the assertion that because he saw the promos for the workshop "only" weeks beforehand, it was therefore a secret plot :
... organise something in the shadows, so that the open source world would be caught hopping. The fact that I only heard about it a few weeks beforehand ... shows how quiet the Commission kept about this. This secrecy ..."
He knew about weeks ahead of time, yet claims a shadowy plot to keep the workshop secret, then his logic only gets worse from there. Triple tinfoil hat for that author.
He says the panel was rigged, but it includes the founder of FSF Europe and a FSF attorney as well as representatives from specific open source projects/products like PloneGov and Kolab.
If FRAND patents exclude OSS, then there's something wrong with OSS.
I'm glad we are able to be pool our resources to be represented by corporations like the Free Software Foundation, which had two representatives speaking at the workshop. I'm also glad the Mozilla Foundation Incorporated (Firefox) has a voice, as does kernel.org, a California corporation.
Given Red Hat Inc.'s investment of BIILIONS of dollars toward OSS investment, I think that corporation also deserves a voice. Why exactly should people who invest billions and hire thousands of people NOT be allowed to speak out about government policies that put all of those jobs at risk? Why should we NOT be allowed to express our views by donating to FSF and sending FSF representatives on our behalf?
The author starts with the premise that it's a shadowy, secret plot, evidenced by the fact he saw the promos for the workshop only WEEKS in advance. I know I always advertise MY secret plots weeks in advance of sitting down to discuss them. He then proceeds to say that the panel, including two representatives from the Free Software Foundation Europe, was a bunch of anti- Free Software shills. The FSF is against free software? Really? Triple tinfoil hat territory.
FRAND patents include per-unit license fees.
How do you pay those on a product you want freely copied by as many people as possible?
Let me introduce you to my friends the Arabs and a little something they've cooked up called "zero".
If per-unit license fees are zero why do you need to pay anyone?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why is paying fees incompatible with Open Source, unless Open Source is the same as free as in beer.
Because they are outnumbered by about 50 to one by the supermegacorps and the lobbyists working for supermegacorp, who can outspend them something like 100 times over when it comes to buying politicians?
I mean you have exactly ONE, and only one, billion dollar corp and they are just barely over the billion dollar mark. Now look at how much Apple and the big media corps have by way of comparison and then realize thanks to all the tax dodges you are only looking at probably a third of how much they REALLY have. You think kernel.org, Moz,and RH along with the FSF can stand in the room with those guys and not get outbid by several orders of magnitude?
The reasons corps shouldn't be allowed to "speak" with money is because their "speech" quickly drowns out the people. it is SUPPOSED to be one man one vote but with corps being allowed to be treated as people suddenly some people are simply worth more and therefor better than everybody else, and that is just fucked up. Just because you can name a couple of corps that aren't complete douchebags doesn't magically tip the scales in favor of corps, because for every one FSF you have a dozen Goldman Sachs and *.AAs.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Software patents are nothing like actually collecting rent because they provide no utility to the one paying.
If it has no utility for you, you wouldn't license it and wouldn't be missing out on anything, right? Of course there's some benefit being conveyed to the licensee (user). Specifically, the useful result of someone's research and development efforts. If it weren't beneficial, you'd have no interest in it and not care if it were patented or not.
The problem isn't that things patented aren't useful, the problem is that inter-operability standards should avoid patented methods so that implementations can be compliant without paying license fees.
The article claims that going from royalty-free licensing to FRAND licensing hurts FOSS. That's wrong. Royalty-free licensing can be just as incompatible with GPLv3 for example as FRAND licensing. GPLv3 requires that you need a patent license that allows you to distribute the software directly or indirectly without any restrictions.
Here's a GPLv3 incompatible license: "I allow you and everybody else to use my patent in your software and any derived software and distribute it under the GPLv3 or a later license, as long as you send me a copy of the source code, and everyone creating and distributing a derived version also sends me a copy of the source code".
Note that all these people have to send me a copy of the source anyway if I ask them, so there is no hardship involved at all, but this license means they have to send a copy without me even asking. That makes it incompatible with GPLv3.
Click on the list of presenters. It includes the founder of FSF E, a lawyer from FSF E, and representatives from open source projects.
A large chunk of the GUI systems you see on modern Linux distributions, as well as things like the Red Hat cluster suite, were developed by or in conjuction with paid distros like Red Hat. Are they completely incompatible with open source? Red Hat isn't free as in beer, but it's GPL. Someone has to buy it before they can distribute it under GPL. Seems to be working just fine.
Methinks you've no idea of what you're talking about. Only the most uninformed American, British and Continental European could possibly have anything to say about EU democracy -- and that would be if, and only if, they followed Anglo-Saxon news.
Get real. Seriously.
The parliament is elected in very much the same way as the US congress is. The EC officials are suggested by elected heads of state, and must be approved by the EU parliament.
When new directives and regulations are in the pipe, the entire process is entirely transparent. They publish pretty much everything they do in no less than 23 languages. Consider that for a moment. 23 languages. If you've got anything to say about whatever the EC and the EP are working on, you merely need to read up and participate. And you can. And some do. At all levels. It's grass-root stuff, really. And grass-root movements actually get their way every now and then (e.g. ACTA), contrary to what occurs in the US congress.
The EU's key issue, if any, is this: When local parliaments transcribe a directive into local law that relates to improving air quality, they'll readily take credit for it. But when heads of States agree to pass a tough but much needed reform as an EU treaty, directive or regulation, they'll instantly blame the EU for it.
A case in point would be France's latest president, Hollande. He campaigned saying he'd renegotiate the stability pact. Anyone with an ounce of clue knew that he was full of shit. But even his key opponent, Sarkozy, didn't call him out on it, because the EU is far too convenient a scapegoat to lay bare. Hollande went on to lick Merkel's feet and promptly enact the actual treaty. And he'll need it, to pass further legislation down the road to axe the public sector. Want you to bet that he won't place part or all of the blame on the stability pact when he does?
Its other key issue would be the UK press' Euro-skepticism at large. Which, I assume, is your main source of information -- directly or not.
Realistically there's a lot of money behind closed source, not just the company producing it but the countless lawyers and political institutions that maintain and write patents. What about the big box stores that sell it and promote it, advertisers won't be left out in the cold either! Free and open source will continue to fight this uphill battle, not that it necessarily can't or shouldn't, but a company that could commercialize this and genuinely play nice with the community and markets would do quite well.
Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
Many adherents claim it is all about freedom of information: The right to have the source code to modify. However for them it is really about just not having to pay for anything, though they won't admit it.
After all, FRAND open standards are something that would appear to be compatible with open information. They are available to all, and the standard contains everything you need to implement it, the fees for redistribution are fixed, and so on. While it does cost money, the information is open, the implementation is open. There are any secrets and you can re-implement it as you like.
However many OSS heads scream and cry about it, many of the same ones who will declare that OSS is not incompatible with making money. They'll claim it limits freedom but what they are really mad about is that it limits their ability to get things for free. They don't want to have to pay for software, and FRAND does stand in opposition to that.
People need to decide which kind of free software they care about: Do you care about open access to the source and information, or do you care about not paying? Either is fine but be clear what it is that matters. Don't claim that openness of code is important and then get mad when code is open, but there are fees for redistribution.
An example would be H.264. The standard is an open one, and FRAND licensed. You can get the reference code and it has been gotten and improved by projects like x264. However, if you wish to distribute your works, you need to pay for it. It is open, but not no-cost.
If no-cost is what you want, say so. Don't try to claim that you want open access to code, when what you really want is to just not have to pay for any software.
You mentioned EOLAS as a patent that I guess you think covers something with no utility. Clearly most people think browser plugins have utility. The problem with the EOLAS patent wasn't that plugins aren't useful. The problem was that they sat on their "rights" for years, then launched a sneak attack. In the landlord-tenant analogy several types of estoppel would have prevented that. You're probably familiar with "squatters rights". In that case, Microsoft was the squatter on EOLAS claimed property. Perhaps they should have had squatters' rights.
You also mention bad patents - companies patenting methods or inventions they didn't invent. That would compare to a false "landowner" demanding rent for land they don't rightfully own.
None of that in any way supports the assertion that patented inventions hold no utility for the user. I'm utilizing patented technology to write this, so clearly Google's R&D had some utility to me, the user.
You could probably make several reasonable arguments about patents - that the patent office should be far more strict about patents they grant, about patent trolls vs. inventors, etc. The problem is, all these arguments are all mixed up in your head, so you don't seem to know which argument you're making at any given time. Your zealotry even seems to have you so confused that you'll believe, and argue, anything that seems vaguely anti-patent. I bet you'd argue that patents are unconstitutional, simply because you'd like them to be. There are plenty of good arguments about patent trolls. Slow down, read them carefully, and THINK about them.
Don't accept their documents and other items, unless it is open source or can be utilized by open source.
...bullshit. The OP is nothing better than a troll
1. FRAND does not "effectively lock out open source" but mandating open source does lock out FRAND.
2. The UK government, heavily lobbied by and complicit with the so-called "Open Forum Europe" (a vocal and EU registered lobby group, supported primarily by IBM, Redhat, and Google) decided to turn the clock back by declaring that the EU can take a hike, despite the new EU Standardisation regulations being very clear about the broad and inclusive definition of open standards. The fact that the Minister responsible, Francis Maude, has abdicated all executive responsibility and delegated everything to his new CIO, Liam Maxwell, an open source ideologue and zealot, reflects a worrying tendency of government leaders allowing themselves to be bamboozled by "technically complicated issues" rather than maintaining their responsibility for technology strategy and policy. It is nothing to be proud of that the UK's public sector technology strategy is now run by technocrat zealots.
3. Some, including the UK government and OFE, deliberately blur the distinction between "open standards" and "open source" - they are almost completely orthogonal issues but blurring the boundaries allows then to play a dangerous but short-term profitable strategy of "bait and switch": talk the open standards talk but, when it comes to taking actual policy decisions, make them about open source.
I've witnessed these tactics and trends for the last years and am getting sick and tired of the blind ideologues the zealots - if they want to have a clean fight about governments pursuing an explicit strategy in favour of open source and against all other (legitimate) business models, then have the balls to stand up and argue for it rather than the underhand tactics employed here and elsewhere