OK, go back to your tape and play back what I really said, word-for-word, then type it in for us to read. Make sure it's word-for-word accurate. While you do that, you'll find that "bend companies to my will" or "forcibly extract value from them" isn't in there.
What you may be missing is that patents are required to include a good enough explanation of the patented principle that someone else who reads the patent sould be able to duplicate it.
Maybe I should have explained that in my article.
But disclosure doesn't help us much if we can't use the principle for 20 years.
I think you are confusing "liberty" with "price" when you read "free".
There is a partnership in free software, in which the people who make money from the software return value to the community in the form of more free software or services such as a free FTP server for a project or a loaner IA-64 machine so that Debian can do a port. IBM and HP already do this stuff. Helping us with patents fits in there, too.
The "95%" statement comes from Greg Aharonian, search for him on the web. I did qualify it, too, with "some say".
I wrote
companies sponsor research departments so that they can have a steady flow of inventions upon which to file patents
The word only does not appear in that sentence and the reason given is not meant to be exclusive.
If this were a school paper or one I was writing to submit to a research journal, it would have lots of footnotes. But it's neither. It's political writing.
Large companies will always do whats in their best intrests regardless of what they say their reasons are.
If you study the history of large companies, you will find that while they intend to behave in their own best interest, the reality is that they often fail to do so. Many large companies are the victims of software patent rip-offs, rather than perpetrators of the rip-offs. For this reason, I have some support within those companies.
Remember that I am also part of the top management of a computer company with 84,000 employees. There is actually some support within that company for my ideas.
Glendower:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?
I can call a summit, and folks will show up.
Someone had to call the meeting, it's too important to simply not do anything about the situation. I am the one who made the decision to close it, as the kernel summit was closed, and that's GPL stuff too. I used RMS' logic for justification, but I made the decision because I did not see us getting an agreement any other way.
Nobody is asking them to give up patents entirely. However, we could, for example, ask for a blanket license to use their patents in GPL work. That would protect IBM's commercial interests, since users of other licenses than the GPL would have to pay for their own patent license.
That is why I started Software in the Public Interest. It didn't work out to do that, though. First, if you are to be shielded by a corporation, you have to be acting on the orders of the corporation. That is a little too constraining for the developers.
One problem is that if someone wins a suit against that sort of corporation, the software it owns would be considered an asset, and could be siezed by the court and sold to pay damages to the complaintant in the lawsuit.
I get the feeling that people like Perens have become "leaders" by their own hand and word.
Isn't that true for all leaders? You have to "stick your neck out" to influence others. But I can only lead where they will follow.
I do not consider Perens and Stallman my "leaders"
That's fine, we didn't ask you to do so. Just please keep reading my arguments when I publish them, you might agree with some and act appropriately about the causes I bring to your attention. That's really all I ask of anyone.
How much real code have Perens and Stallman contributed to the free world?
A whole lot, actually. Richard more than me. Richard did GCC, Emacs, wrote the GPL, and has elucidated much of the philosophy of free software with his writing.
I did Electric Fence, created Busybox (which is a part of just about every Embedded Linux product and is a key component of the Debian install system and the Linux Router Project), helped build Debian from 60 people to 200, created the Debian Social Contract and the Open Source Definition, helped get Linux on the Space Shuttle, and, oh, just go read my bio at perens.com . Since you asked, what have you contributed?
and they couch their cause in terms of a nation that does not encompass us all.
Not really. The argument concerns the U.S. because that is the only nation that honors software patents today. We are very grateful that other countries don't do that yet!
Richard is a more complicated person than many people here realize. For example, he's not a pacifist. Yes, he has his flaws, we all do. If you were to take the time to get to know him, you would not regret that experience.
I agree that I am not some sort of warlord who could mobilize all of the free software developers with a single order. But then, I have never represented myself as such. What I can do is write arguments that sway a lot of people. I can only lead where they will follow, but I have done it very successfully. For example, I once created something called the Debian Free Software Guidelines which then became the Open Source Definition. It is extremely well-accepted by those developers you mention.
I don't make and sign treaties, but I do help companies arrive at successful relationships with the developers. I did this with IBM when their original pass at an Open Source License wasn't quite Open Source. I criticized it, they listened, and then they provided an attorney for me to work with and we fixed the license. IBM has continued to use the IBM Public Source License version that I contributed to, to this day.
Actually, I didn't mean for the list of arguments to be exhaustive or even for them to justify the rest of my essay. I just listed them to provide food for thought. My main argument is that the Free Software community has a problem with patents and needs help from its partners who also happen to own a whole lot of patents. As someone else here said, they would not want to kill the golden goose, would they?
I think you are confusing liberty with price when you read "free".
Free Software is not a gift, it's a partnership. There is a quid-pro-quo between the developers and the people who profit from their work. This quid-pro-quo encourages the developers to develop more. Part of this is the contribution of new free software produced by the company back to the developers whose software the company is using. Part of it may take the form of other kinds of assistance, like network services for an FTP server, etc. IBM, HP, and other companies already do these things. And I think help with these patent issues fits in with the rest.
Maybe I should have stated this in the article. The patent must include a thorough description of the patented principle, thorough enough for someone else to duplicate it. So, it includes what I think you are asking for, though not in source-code form but as documentation.
However, the availability of source code would not help much, since you would have no right to make any use of that source code without licensing the patent.
I agree that cross-licensing only works for big companies, and works to the detriment of smaller ones. I didn't mean to say it was a perfect defense for the folks who use it, either. Far from it.
Certainly the obnoxious effect of software patents would be reduced if their term were only three years as you suggest. However, I still have fundamental questions about their appropriateness that a simple term-reduction would not address.
I was entertained by your reference to my animosity for commercial software companies. I am a member of the top management of HP, a commercial software (and hardware) company with 84,000 employees. HP asked me to come on board to help them be a good partner with the Free Software community, not so that I could "rattle my saber at them". Being a partner means you give some, and you take some. That's quid-pro-quo is what I'm talking about in the essay.
Regarding the use of Free Software "as a weapon", I think the word you are searching for is "competition". Software patents improperly and unfairly block competition.
The international rules for ham radio require that the communication not be of a pecuniary nature. Personal conversation and technical conversation that hams would generally do is OK, but to do business you need to go to another means of communication. This is to protect ham radio from being overrun by the commercial interests and (long ago) to protect monopoly the phone company (or post office, depending on your country).
Most regulators are tending to remove ham radio regulations that protect phone companies now that there are fewer protected monopolies, a lot of this will hopefully go on at ITU 2003.
This would make more sense were it not for the fact that MetroLink, other than the lack of a promised investment from LGP, has been doing pretty well. The investment market has dried up for everyone, not just free software companies.
GnuCash and other LGP portfolio companies are effected as well, and have been for months. LGP simply does not have the cash, although they continue valiant efforts to raise it.
It's another market casualty, unfortunately. I shut down my own venture company (which is not to be confused with LGP) a while back, due to the investment climate.
Slashdot Mirror
Bruce
Maybe I should have explained that in my article.
But disclosure doesn't help us much if we can't use the principle for 20 years.
Thanks
Bruce
There is a partnership in free software, in which the people who make money from the software return value to the community in the form of more free software or services such as a free FTP server for a project or a loaner IA-64 machine so that Debian can do a port. IBM and HP already do this stuff. Helping us with patents fits in there, too.
Thanks
Bruce
I wrote
The word only does not appear in that sentence and the reason given is not meant to be exclusive.If this were a school paper or one I was writing to submit to a research journal, it would have lots of footnotes. But it's neither. It's political writing.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Second I forwarded your comment to some folks in the Linux division who can help.
Thanks
Bruce
If you study the history of large companies, you will find that while they intend to behave in their own best interest, the reality is that they often fail to do so. Many large companies are the victims of software patent rip-offs, rather than perpetrators of the rip-offs. For this reason, I have some support within those companies.
Remember that I am also part of the top management of a computer company with 84,000 employees. There is actually some support within that company for my ideas.
Thanks
Bruce
I can call a summit, and folks will show up. Someone had to call the meeting, it's too important to simply not do anything about the situation. I am the one who made the decision to close it, as the kernel summit was closed, and that's GPL stuff too. I used RMS' logic for justification, but I made the decision because I did not see us getting an agreement any other way.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
One problem is that if someone wins a suit against that sort of corporation, the software it owns would be considered an asset, and could be siezed by the court and sold to pay damages to the complaintant in the lawsuit.
Thanks
Bruce
I get the feeling that people like Perens have become "leaders" by their own hand and word.
Isn't that true for all leaders? You have to "stick your neck out" to influence others. But I can only lead where they will follow.
I do not consider Perens and Stallman my "leaders"
That's fine, we didn't ask you to do so. Just please keep reading my arguments when I publish them, you might agree with some and act appropriately about the causes I bring to your attention. That's really all I ask of anyone.
How much real code have Perens and Stallman contributed to the free world?
A whole lot, actually. Richard more than me. Richard did GCC, Emacs, wrote the GPL, and has elucidated much of the philosophy of free software with his writing.
I did Electric Fence, created Busybox (which is a part of just about every Embedded Linux product and is a key component of the Debian install system and the Linux Router Project), helped build Debian from 60 people to 200, created the Debian Social Contract and the Open Source Definition, helped get Linux on the Space Shuttle, and, oh, just go read my bio at perens.com . Since you asked, what have you contributed?
and they couch their cause in terms of a nation that does not encompass us all.
Not really. The argument concerns the U.S. because that is the only nation that honors software patents today. We are very grateful that other countries don't do that yet!
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
I don't make and sign treaties, but I do help companies arrive at successful relationships with the developers. I did this with IBM when their original pass at an Open Source License wasn't quite Open Source. I criticized it, they listened, and then they provided an attorney for me to work with and we fixed the license. IBM has continued to use the IBM Public Source License version that I contributed to, to this day.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Free Software is not a gift, it's a partnership. There is a quid-pro-quo between the developers and the people who profit from their work. This quid-pro-quo encourages the developers to develop more. Part of this is the contribution of new free software produced by the company back to the developers whose software the company is using. Part of it may take the form of other kinds of assistance, like network services for an FTP server, etc. IBM, HP, and other companies already do these things. And I think help with these patent issues fits in with the rest.
Thanks
Bruce
However, the availability of source code would not help much, since you would have no right to make any use of that source code without licensing the patent.
Bruce
Certainly the obnoxious effect of software patents would be reduced if their term were only three years as you suggest. However, I still have fundamental questions about their appropriateness that a simple term-reduction would not address.
Thanks
Bruce
I was entertained by your reference to my animosity for commercial software companies. I am a member of the top management of HP, a commercial software (and hardware) company with 84,000 employees. HP asked me to come on board to help them be a good partner with the Free Software community, not so that I could "rattle my saber at them". Being a partner means you give some, and you take some. That's quid-pro-quo is what I'm talking about in the essay.
Regarding the use of Free Software "as a weapon", I think the word you are searching for is "competition". Software patents improperly and unfairly block competition.
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
The international rules for ham radio require that the communication not be of a pecuniary nature. Personal conversation and technical conversation that hams would generally do is OK, but to do business you need to go to another means of communication. This is to protect ham radio from being overrun by the commercial interests and (long ago) to protect monopoly the phone company (or post office, depending on your country).
Most regulators are tending to remove ham radio regulations that protect phone companies now that there are fewer protected monopolies, a lot of this will hopefully go on at ITU 2003.
Bruce
Bruce
It's another market casualty, unfortunately. I shut down my own venture company (which is not to be confused with LGP) a while back, due to the investment climate.
Bruce