European Commission Support of FRAND Licenses Hurts Open Standards

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

European Commission Support of FRAND Licenses Hurts Open Standards

Posted by timothy on Tuesday January 1, 2013 @04:28AM from the but-it-felt-so-fair-and-reasonable dept.

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."

12 of 137 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So much for democracy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-01 04:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Many European citizens still think Europe will bring more democracy but it mostly brings more power to corporate lobbies.
1. Re:So much for democracy by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2013-01-01 04:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's often true, but on the other hand, look at something like ACTA, where national governments were lining up to back the Big Media position, and it basically died because of a European-level grass-roots campaign.
  Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any way of knowing which level(s) of government will actually side with their people and which will side with their corporate sponsors these days, particularly with all the conveniently indirectly elected "representatives" throughout the system now.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
2. Re:So much for democracy by Freultwah · 2013-01-01 09:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The Commission *is* a technical institution. Its business is to draw up legislation based on general principles and guidelines agreed upon in the European Council (consisting of democratically elected heads of state). Said legislation is usually amended or shot down in either the Council of the European Union (consisting of democratically elected ministers from member states) or the European Parliament (consisting of democratically elected representatives from member states), the latter of which has a final say. It is a damn shame that the European people do not realise how much power the Parliament really has and therefore do not participate at its election nearly as enthusiastically as they should, participation hovering around the 30% mark and if you ask me, such detachment from the matters of the continent is borderline autistic.
  The Commission does not decide anything. All it can do in that regard is present its case well enough in front of the Council of the EU and the EP. All those controversial EU regulations that domestic governments sell their people as coming from the Commission (‘and sorry, there's nothing we can do, Barroso told us to stick our heads in the oven’) have actually been then ratified by the governments themselves and by consensus, often because they would not dare pass such legislation at home because it would render them unelectable for quite some time. And most of them have also been called into life by the same local elected officials.
  I realise that there is no direct counterpart for the Commission in any of the member states for a direct comparison, but I liken them to the technical and unelected staff at the ministries who nowadays provide most of the legislation in most countries according to the guidelines from elected officials. You don't elect all the administrators and the various specialists and the lawyers who work at ministries. Likewise, you don't elect the Commission. It should remain an independent technical tool to provide legislative proposals that the elected officials could then shoot down if necessary.
Another Stitchup in Secret, Tax the participants ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-01 04:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
No software patents in the EU right? by erroneus · 2013-01-01 04:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
"secret" meeting advertised weeks in advance? by raymorris · 2013-01-01 05:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Re:FRAND excludes Open Source? by Microlith · 2013-01-01 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Open Source doesn't imply no fees.
Imposing mandatory royalties on standards makes it impossible to comply with the standard in FOSS projects. You end up with patent holders capable of dictating who can and cannot use the software. That defeats the purpose of FOSS, particularly the stuff that falls under licenses like the GPLv2 and GPLv3.

Is the truth that OSS is all about getting something for nothing?
This is you simply being a troll. Stick to white knighting for Apple.
Re:FRAND excludes Open Source? by Microlith · 2013-01-01 07:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

Perhaps that's what the FSF should be working out, instead of pushing GPL v3.
Why should the FSF spend its time working out how to co-exist with something that they object to?

I often chuckle when people justify torrenting movies on the basis that Hollywood movies are so bad these days it's not worth paying for them.
Ok so opposition to software patents == piracy now?

if the patented idea has no utility, then don't use it. If it does then pay for it.
This makes the assumption that the patent is valid and actually provides use. Never mind all the crap patents used by patent trolls, ones that get invalidated after long court battles. Never mind patents that are violated without even being aware of it.
Putting patent "methods" into standards is something good exclusively for proprietary software vendors as a way to exclude FOSS solutions.

I'm a proprietary software developer.
And, quite obviously, opposed to Free Software. It's pretty obvious.

I believe that when people labour towards something that is consumed by others, they should be paid.
You also are defending the status quo. Unsurprisingly, there are people who disagree with it.

I don't understand why people here are so desperate to devalue computer programmers so their work is worth nothing.
That's not at all what is happening here. This is you trying to paint FOSS developers in a bad light and stump for the pro-patent status quo.
Re:FRAND excludes Open Source? by Microlith · 2013-01-01 07:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

its the insistence on a license and distribution model that cannot easily handle various real burdens which creates the can of worms out of thin air.
Artificial burdens. At this point software patents don't exist in the EU and hopefully they never will. Of course, if you think that insisting upon the distribution model the GPL (or any FOSS license) allows is a flaw, then you're pretty much anti-FOSS and should just admit it.
The Europe Union is ALL about democracy by Kergan · 2013-01-01 07:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:The Europe Union is ALL about democracy by Kergan · 2013-01-01 08:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  All very good but you forget about the Directives that can be issued by the Commission without the oversight of the Parliament. Said directives MUST be enacted by the member states. End of.
  Now how is that Democracy?
  Nope. ALL directives must pass through the EP.
That's a big problem with the OSS movement by Sycraft-fu · 2013-01-01 11:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.