Don't forget that without strong intellectual property laws, the GPL would not exist, and it would be in nobody's interest to share code or ideas for fear that they would get stolen.
The GNU General Public License depends on copyright law, not "intellectual property" laws (whatever those are). Intellectual property consists of not one cohesive set of laws but a diverse and sometimes conflicting set of disparate laws that cannot be properly understood if you refer to them as a whole.
As for being in nobody's interest to share--before the GNU Project existed virtually everyone shared code and ideas freely. Richard Stallman talked about this community (which he was a part of) because it highlights the jarring change that drove him to start the GNU Project. You should listen to his talks on the subject.
Software patents (as they have come to be known) were unnecessary for most of the time people have been writing computer software. Thus we can show by existence that people do not need these patents in the field of software to innovate. I don't know about other fields of endeavor, but in computer software they are generally unwanted and they actually serve to retard innovation.
Other than for backup purposes, why would you want to burn a disc that's almost guaranteed not to work on another CD-ROM?
I wouldn't want it for backup purposes either. I value my backups more than pinching my pennies so I can get a little more data on a CD-R. That's not smart spending. I want to maximize the chances I can read my backups 5 years from now on typical equipment. Plextor's proprietary drive is not typical and I'm not sure it will last. Five years from now Plextor might not be in business or maybe the market will not accept this drive (just like it didn't want Sony's DD-R(W) years ago). I'm not going to pay for features I will never use and so far this sounds to me like Plextor's got an expensive loser of a drive here.
The Open Source movement eschews freedom. The Free Software movement is about freedom. When Open Source advocates adopt the language of freedom, I think that's good and telling at the same time--good in that more people need to know about software freedom. I agree with the FSF when they say we need more freedom talk. And I think everyone is grateful for the Open Source movement bringing in more people who use and develop Free Software (as well as securing the GNU General Public License--developed by and for the Free Software movement--as the most widely used Free Software license). But I find it is also telling at the same time because it means the message the Open Source movement was based on, the message that movement conveys--a development methodology--is being lost.
The Open Source movement should have found some weapon to blackmail politicians into not allowing these new patent law changes to pass. For instance: "If you pass these laws these particular (thousands of) businesses will flee Europe and go elsewhere and take hundreds of thousands of jobs with them."
This is more a reply to the Register than to Travoltus' post, but did it occur to Kieren McCarthy that blackmailing politicians into action is not the kind of government most people want and that we are trying to exhibit the kind of considered action we want to see more of in our government? I would not consider doing one's homework and presenting a complete case "blackmailing", so perhaps that wasn't the best language for the author to pick.
I have some experience working on political campaigns (two local: one Congressional, one for local city council) and I'm active in my community on a number of other issues, so I'm aware of McCarthy's argument and how to wage it. And it would be valuable to do the research to be able to make that argument. But I think this is one of the weaknesses of the free software and open source movements--we don't mobilize our varied talents well.
Does anyone reading this have the skill needed to address the jobs concern? Or know of anyone who can help? We need help now.
I'm quite familiar with Stallman's excellent speech on the matter of software patents and how it adversely affects free software development. Part of that speech encourages us to consider that patents for one area of endeavor doesn't mean all areas of endeavor should have patents. Has this point been made clear to legislators? Has it been supported with examples of areas where patents would be a big problem (two hypothetical examples off the top of my head: legal argument strategies and surgical techniques--either of which could both lead to people losing their lives due to waiting for the patent holder to choose to represent or operate on them)?
That is because THEY [the FSF who] are demanding things. Specifically the right to rename other people's stuff against their wishes.
The FSF is asking, not demanding, you call the GNU system with the Linux kernel "GNU/Linux" or some other name that gives GNU a share of the credit. Second, they aren't renaming or suggesting you stop giving Linux credit for being a major component in a GNU/Linux system. Linux is the name Linus Torvalds gave his kernel in 1991. GNU is the name of the free software operating system started in 1984. If anything, you have it exactly backwards--calling the entire operating system "Linux" refers to the GNU system by the name Torvalds uses for his kernel. I hope you'll take some time to read their FAQ on the issue.
And yes I do understand the accomplishments of the FSF, but most of those were in the 80s.
These accomplishments continue to pay off today. The benefits of freedom don't stop even though the seminal documents were written almost 30 years ago. Your posts take on a tone of "yeah, but what have you done for me lately?" that comes off as though you think the FSF owes you something.
But if you actually think the HURD is going to be ready for production environments in this decade you are more of an optimist than I am.
And what happened when you offered your assistance to the project by porting programs or writing documentation?
That combined with their refusal to adopt the open development model that drove Linux to such rapid success means they have been eclipsed by events.
The "open" development process that was well established before the Free Software movement began (and thus before the Open Source movement began); the development process that RMS participated in the 1970s when he was hacking code at MIT about the time he had the now-famous incident with the printer software. The development process that comes from assuring people the freedoms to share and modify software--freedoms that were secured because of copylefted free software licenses (such as the GNU GPL) well before the Open Source movement existed? Development labor comes and goes, but other things are important too.
Which is why I'd classify the current FSF as more of a lobbying organization than one that actually produces thing new code.
I see code being hacked (on Savannah and on specific projects like the Hurd) and I think it's great that that work is getting done. But even if I put that aside, I have to wonder: so what if the FSF is lobbying too? This doesn't stop us from hacking code if we want to. A lot of the challenges free software users face are political challenges, not calls for more code to be hacked. We need more free software programmers to be aware that there are political forces at work that control their ability to freely hack code.
They need to grow up over there. Especially since in THIS case it IS Linux under attack and NOT the GNU Project.
I'd say their view of copyright law, software programming, and giving respect by calling things by their given name is considerably "grow[n] up". What you don't appear to understand is that SCO's language is purposefully unclear so they can leave their options open on what to sue for. The FSF was simply being thorough in their explanation by showing that SCO's language lead to a losing case.
Their problem is the fear of becoming irrelevent and I have some news for them.
No on both counts--their fear is probably closer to not having enough money to do all the things they want to do, and no you don't have any news for them. Perhaps you haven't been around long enough to know what contributions the GNU project has made to our community (ideological and programmatic). The political forces are at work challenge both the Open Source and Free Software movements and must be met by focusing our efforts on lobbying for political support, not just more code.
Getting a working GNU/Hurd system has been accomplished and looks to me like it is now in the stage where it is not ready for most computer users but it does boot. Improvements and extensions to the system (as well as getting the Hurd on a new microkernel) continue to arrive. This is all significant and needed progress but more code will not help stop harmful policies from being adopted under the cry of "harmonization" (such as EU adopting software patents or stopping the US Congress from extending the term of copyright again), nor will it stop various US states from adopting legislation that could (among other things) make it illegal to have a firewall unless the local telecommnications corporation says otherwise, or a host of other things that adversely affect our community. The FSF continues to speak on these issues and support Free Software development; the FSF is relevant nearly 30 years after they began.
Don't think that developing code must be done instead of working on other issues. All this and more needs to be done and is being done all at the same time.
[...] The suit arose because IBM has made a strong push towards using the ever more popular Linux operating system for computers. [...]
[...] Then, about a decade ago, a young Finn named Linus Torvalds introduced an operating system (named Linux, after its creator) that did some of what UNIX did. [...]
I am addressing his misuse of the term "Linux" which robs GNU of any credit at all. Your critique about SCO's claims should be directed to the professor because he clearly refers to the entire OS. The professor's reference is incorrect and does not indicate Professor Chander is cognizant of what Linux actually is--a part of the whole, something that deserves recognition, but not to the exclusion of other major pieces of the system (of which GNU is clearly one such piece).
To say GNU "has nothing to do with this lawsuit" is quite wrong. The license under which Linux is licensed came from the freedom-minded concerns of the GNU project (the GNU General Public License). It's great to be thankful for the software, but don't forget the community that grew up around the freedoms of free software. The GNU project proved we can all work together leveraging the power of a copyright regime against the proprietors that want our systems to vanish is also quite an accomplishment.
I'm very grateful to GNU for their software contributions, but to say that GNU and Linux are the only important components of the O.S. is the height of silliness.
Which I never claimed, I said they were both valuable chunks of the system. I am glad you chose to include GNU in your list of contributors. I hope whatever components you select as major regularly includes GNU. I happen to agree with the GNU project's FAQ on this matter. Thanks for recognizing the GNU project's contribution!
The professor's article consistently fails to give credit where credit is due. "Linux" is not an operating system and it never was. Linux is a part of an operating system called a kernel (which acts as a bookkeeper managing the resources of a computer so applications can share those resources without conflict). It's fair to credit the major chunks of an operating system; GNU and Linux are both valuable chunks. It's also less confusing to the reader if one refers to the union of the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel by mentioning both parts (hence the term "GNU/Linux"). For the FSF's take on this, please read their essay which also has a link to a FAQ on this issue.
Also, the article inappropriately and inaccurately attributes the concept of copyleft to the Open Source movement. Copyleft, to quote the FSF, is "a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well". This concept and the term was invented by Richard Stallman, father of the Free Software movement. Stallman started GNU and the Free Software Foundation over a decade before the Open Source movement came along. He also defined the need for software freedom, something the Open Source movement eschews.
Finally, it would be nice if the professor clarified that the term "free" has multiple meanings in English and that the meaning which is most important for this discussion is the one referring to certain freedoms, not price. The "free" in "free software" has to do with the freedoms to share and modify software. The freedoms of free software are a big part of why the GNU/Linux system (and other free software systems) are worth using.
I hope the professor will find the time to correct the errors in his article.
Don't confuse Open Source with Free Software.
on
What is Open Source?
·
· Score: 1
well, GPL, being the most prevalent license for OSS, has become nearly synonimous with Open Source for non-technical people. And is that really so bad? If you get the gist of the GPL, then you get the gist of Open Source.
Not at all. The GNU General Public License was written by the Free Software Foundation for the Free Software movement over a decade before the Open Source movement began. These two movements have different philosophies. Nothing in the pairing of the Open Source movement and the GNU General Public License tells you this. The Free Software movement supports the freedoms to share and modify software and compels you to notice that the benefits the Open Source movement champions come from the freedoms of Free Software (freedoms which the Open Source movement eschews).
5. Using a toothpick to undermine the foundations of the Adobe headquarters.
People have to start somewhere to express their outrage at the corporation that helped put Dmitry Skylarov in jail. Fighting the DMCA is also very important, but Adobe should not be forgotten because they chose to leverage the DMCA against Skylarov. Fortunately a jury didn't see things Adobe's way.
I hope this page doesn't go away. I hope it is updated to the current state of the relevant U.S. patents on the LZW algorithm held by IBM and Unisys.
I hope the page doesn't go away because it makes a number of other points which are still valid including:
Patent infringement can be charged against users of programs, not just the developers or distributors.
PNG is technically superior (even if support for it is less popular) and we should do what we can to encourage its use.
The reason why the GNU.org web pages don't use GIFs should apply to other patented algorithms as well (I'd be surprised to see GNU.org distributing an MP3 right now, for instance)
And I'm sure there are plenty of other valid observations. I consider that page to be a concise summary of some level-headed thinking on the subject of (what has come to be known as) software patents. It's often easier to point to that page than to get someone to listen to the speech on software patents or to read the entire transcript of the speech simply because the GIF page is shorter (but less comprehensive).
[...]
but you rightly expressed a major problem the FSF has identified in a class of licenses called "copyleft"
A correction: "copyleft" should read "non-copyleft" above. The problem with maintaining the freedom to share and modify programs is with non-copylefted Free Software licenses, not copylefted Free Software licenses.
Actually, the grandparent post was not a troll, but you rightly expressed a major problem the FSF has identified in a class of licenses called "copyleft". Unfortunately you have used terminology that suggests you misunderstand the philosophical basis of the movements you refer to.
Saying "The intent of GPL is to make sure that open code stays that way" can lead to confusion because you're talking about the GNU General Public License--a product of the Free Software movement, not the Open Source movement. The FSF wrote the GNU GPL over a decade before the Open Source movement began. More recently, they also wrote a description of troublesome language (including phrases such as "closed" source) so people won't confuse the goals of the Open Source movement with those of the Free Software movement.
Yes: they took the slightly cheaper of their two legal options - removing MP3 players to save the $50k.
And avoided endorsing a system they don't agree with by paying $50k for a halfway fix. As we have both noted, this would not have provided a real fix for those who want full MP3 support because it would not have covered encoders.
By definition, all the current patent-free algorithms will remain so.
That's the goal, but I remain suspicious. I wouldn't be surprised if the system that lead to IBM and Unisys both being able to get patents covering the same algorithm also leads to one patent covering something ostensibly made available by the expiration of another patent. I don't have the time to lay my hands on a specific pair of such patents to point you to right now, but perhaps someone else reading this does. Given the number of patent applications the USPTO goes through, the nature of dealing with algorithms (in which there are many ways to express similar things), and the speed with which the USPTO does their work, I imagine it's very difficult to prevent accidents like this. I understand this can be resolved in court but I don't think that's a reasonable way to handle this particular situation. I would prefer to simply not have software patents anymore.
Internationally I think it's a different story--a US patent for LZW is expected to expire soon, but other patents covering the same algorithm abroad will expire later. Thus this algorithm will be simultaneously covered by patents and not covered by patents (assuming the LZW patent is not renewed) in countries which support software patents. This sounds to me like a problem for developers who want to release their software internationally and reduce their chances of losing a patent infringement lawsuit (which I think is reasonable).
RedHat could have taken the opportunity to remove the whole problem, at least for decoders: pay the $50k, and mpg123 and co are legit.
To be fair, we don't know how much RedHat has budgeted for this (assuming they would want to engage in purchasing patent licenses at all) and Thomson might choose to not sell RedHat a license. Also I would wonder if the decoder license is still incompatible with Free Software licenses because of something in the text of the patent license.
It doesn't prevent anything of the sort. It just makes another patent law to be ignored.
I think courting a patent infringement lawsuit is unwise. I'm guessing RedHat agrees and that is why they removed MP3 software from their GNU/Linux distribution. It's disappointing you aren't citing any reason for disobeying the law other than your immediate desire. Nothing about challenging bad laws, raising awareness of a system that prohibits competing on merit, or working on a better solution--any of the reasons that might encourage people to agree with why you advocate infringing patents. You appear to advocate infringing patents just because you want these features and you're not willing to consider the long-term ramifications of these choices.
This is the only compression algorithm in existence?
No, and fortunately for this case another algorithm was not patent-encumbered. As patents cover more ideas more algorithms will be cut off from implementation and the strategy that led to gzip will be cut off. Which strategy one can take to deal with a patent depends on the details of that particular situation. For programmers in countries that observe software patents, there's no known way to legally encode or decode MP3s without acquiring a license from Thomson. If Thomson decides not to sell you a license or if that license is out of reach, the developer loses and consumers lose from reduced competition. But you need not remind us of your solution--ignore the law because it gets in your way. I can only hope that any developer who doesn't have the US$50k or more to acquire an MP3 patent license somehow comes up with the money to defend themselves should they be sued for patent infringement.
Actually all the GPL does is is to forbid you from distributing closed source software.
Which the FSF, who wrote the GNU General Public License over a decade before the Open Source movement existed, asks you to call "non-free" or "proprietary" software, not "closed source". That way people don't get the wrong idea and think that their work has to do with the Open Source movement and that movement's different values.
Ah yes, the GIF patent. That stopped any free software using GIFs.
Your description glosses over a number of pertinant details. Unisys and IBM were both issued patents covering a compression algorithm commonly used in GIFs (U.S. patents 4,558,302 and 4,814,746, respectively). This presented a problem for those who wanted to deal in the patented algorithm because it meant there were two organizations to deal with to comply, not just one. Generally, as patent law is "harmonized", it becomes easier for corporations (who hold the vast majority of patents) to prevent the spread of Free Software worldwide.
If either IBM or Unisys decided to not issue a license to Free Software developers, issue licenses that depend on a per-unit charge, or place limits on how implementations can use the covered idea (so-called "field-of-use restrictions"), we all lose.
As BurnAllGIFs.org describes, Unisys changed the terms on licensing and can do it again. Software patents in general and this patent in particular contribute to an uncertain playing field on which to distribute software that no reasonable person would dismiss so quickly.
The MP3 patent's licensing terms don't even prohibit legal Free Software implementations - you pay a one-off licensing fee, and you're fine. There seem seem to be plenty.
That's not completely true and it doesn't accurately describe the situation in front of us now. According to mp3licensing.com,
which details the licensing fees to distribute MP3 software, "[a] per unit royalty is taken on mp3/mp3PRO products and applications, such as ripping software, jukebox applications, mp3/mp3PRO-enabled CD/DVD players and portable mp3/mp3PRO players." Per-unit fees are incompatible with Free Software licensing because Free Software can be shared and modified freely, so there are no legal Free Software MP3 encoders. For decoders, one should look at the one-time license fee. The amount of money paid to Thomson depends on what is being licensed. The one-time fees start at US$50,000. How many of the programs you listed have paid the appropriate one-time fee to Thomson so they can legally distribute their programs in countries that honor U.S. software patents?
The reality is, those patents haven't killed MP3 or GIFs.
Nor were they meant to--quite to the contrary, leveraging the patents is done after the ideas described in the patents are in widespread use. Discovering a new format is patent-encumbered takes the shine off the new format. Awareness of the patents in both of the cases you talk about were raised after the public had widely used them. That's one of the ways patent holders make money. What's more socially relevant is what effect this has on the users, not some measure of popularity of a format.
RedHat received some press for removing MP3 decoding software from its GNU/Linux distribution. RedHat GNU/Linux is a very popular GNU/Linux distribution. So that means a lot of RedHat users lose unless they obtain a patent license or infringe upon Thomson's patent.
The effect on the users is what RMS' talk on this subject focuses on as well (approximately 17m into the talk, according to the transcript). RMS tells the story of a compression algorithm that was about to be used in a compression program but couldn't be used because a patent had been issued covering the very same algorithm. RMS learned of this patent a week before that program was set to debut. I doubt that is the only time a program "died before it was born" (quoting RMS' description of the program that implemented the patented algorithm).
I think you are glossing over some of the key points that make software patents so unpalatable to all but the richest businesses.with extant patents which they want to leverage against the public, or enough money so they can cross-license with the patent holder.
[Intellectual property is]
an unfortunate and political renomenclature for what is collectively known as copyrights and patents, which as I mentioned above are provided for in the Constitution.
Just to illustrate how unfortunate that term is, one should know that it covers far more than just copyright and patent law. But even if the term "intellectual property" only covered those two parts of law, it would mislead more than it helped one's understanding of these laws.
Copyrights and patents are acquired differently, they grant different powers to the holder, they last for different amounts of time, and copyright covers specific expression whereas patents cover ideas. There is more dissimilarity between copyrights and patents than they have in common. Any reasonable critique of the problems with modern-day use of copyrights and patents should not gloss over these differences as if copyrights and patents can be talked about as a cohesive whole. Using the term "intellectual property" does not encourage understanding these distinctions.
I think I see a new opponent to the public domain.
on
iTunes Indie Meeting Notes
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Apple Computer, the newest music distribution company? Let's not forget that with Apple's newly acquired library of music they will (if they haven't already) be financially encouraged to join those who want everlasting copyright power. So, as someone should remind the/. audience who is quick to react to shiny new objects and services, don't be so quick to get warm fuzzies when you think of Apple Computer. There is a more important bargain with society that still needs to be addressed anytime we're talking about matters of copyright.
Seriously, he was perhaps the strongest voice AGAINST the recent FCC Media Conslidation ruling.
I saw Hollings on C-SPAN on June 2 shortly after the FCC voted to further deregulate media and I wasn't terribly impressed with what he added. I hope he was seriously against the 3-person FCC majority on this because this is one of the most important domestic issues. His stance against the FCC will help redeem my view of him as a legislator.
I thought Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was a far more powerful speaker because he understood the concept of "framing the debate". Framing the debate means you get to set the limits of allowable discourse--your terminology, your ideas, your way of breaking up an issue become the accepted way to think about the issue and anyone who expresses ideas outside that frame are often unjustly labeled "radical" or "extremist". Sanders hosted a town meeting with FCC commissioner Copps which produced valuable commentary including a discussion on the variety of ways Americans will feel the FCC's June 2 decision locally and nationally. Sanders also stayed late in the House and gave a "special order speech" in which he expressed his desire for the FCC to not allow further homogenization of media. This was on C-SPAN; sadly there were many empty seats behind him.
Don't argue in terms of "IP"
on
Steal This Idea
·
· Score: 1
The book review states
IP is supposed to be a "limited" monopoly.
The parent poster states
Just like anything else..... all IP isn't necessarily bad. There's a heavy anti-IP slant on Slashdot, and that's a shame.
Neither of you appear to know what you're talking about when you argue in terms of "IP" (intellectual property). I would hope that this thread would bother to distinguish between the disparate areas of law that are covered under the largely useless term "IP".
Trademarks, copyrights, and patents (just to name three such areas of law) do not cover the same things, have different histories, raise different social issues, are acquired in different ways, and offer powers that last for differing amounts of time. Sometimes the power you gain via a copyright license conflicts with an extant patent. You simply cannot think clearly about these laws if you lump them together as if they were part of a cohesive whole.
For more criticism and enlightenment on the term, read the FSF's take on "intellectual property" and listen to RMS' talks on the U.S. Patent system or read the transcript. His breakdown of the major problems with patents on algorithms used in the development of computer software (so-called "software patents") are still very relevant.
The irony here being that (according to the article) "The announcement, made on Wednesday [August 28, 2002], stated that from now on, all software developed for the government must be licenced under the GPL." referring to the GNU General Public License, a license written over a decade before the Open Source movement began and written to ensure certain the freedom to share and modify software. Speaking in terms of freedom is eschewed by the Open Source Initiative.
I'm glad that the GNU GPL is getting more use and I welcome the efforts of any organization who wishes to encourage increased GPL use, but I also think it's reasonable to give credit where credit is due. Merely including a seminal license on a list of acceptable licenses does not compare with writing that license or sticking with the ideas expressed in that license.
It's great that you're getting so much use out of all the Free Software used in the development of the game (Ogg Vorbis, Gimp, GNU/Linux, and KallistiOS). Is the game you're distributing Free Software too? Under what license? I figured you might release your program as Free Software as a way to contribute your effort to the community that has apparently helped you so much.
Slashdot Mirror
The GNU General Public License depends on copyright law, not "intellectual property" laws (whatever those are). Intellectual property consists of not one cohesive set of laws but a diverse and sometimes conflicting set of disparate laws that cannot be properly understood if you refer to them as a whole.
As for being in nobody's interest to share--before the GNU Project existed virtually everyone shared code and ideas freely. Richard Stallman talked about this community (which he was a part of) because it highlights the jarring change that drove him to start the GNU Project. You should listen to his talks on the subject.
Software patents (as they have come to be known) were unnecessary for most of the time people have been writing computer software. Thus we can show by existence that people do not need these patents in the field of software to innovate. I don't know about other fields of endeavor, but in computer software they are generally unwanted and they actually serve to retard innovation.
I wouldn't want it for backup purposes either. I value my backups more than pinching my pennies so I can get a little more data on a CD-R. That's not smart spending. I want to maximize the chances I can read my backups 5 years from now on typical equipment. Plextor's proprietary drive is not typical and I'm not sure it will last. Five years from now Plextor might not be in business or maybe the market will not accept this drive (just like it didn't want Sony's DD-R(W) years ago). I'm not going to pay for features I will never use and so far this sounds to me like Plextor's got an expensive loser of a drive here.
The Open Source movement eschews freedom. The Free Software movement is about freedom. When Open Source advocates adopt the language of freedom, I think that's good and telling at the same time--good in that more people need to know about software freedom. I agree with the FSF when they say we need more freedom talk. And I think everyone is grateful for the Open Source movement bringing in more people who use and develop Free Software (as well as securing the GNU General Public License--developed by and for the Free Software movement--as the most widely used Free Software license). But I find it is also telling at the same time because it means the message the Open Source movement was based on, the message that movement conveys--a development methodology--is being lost.
Ciaran O'Riordan, what can Americans do to help?
This is more a reply to the Register than to Travoltus' post, but did it occur to Kieren McCarthy that blackmailing politicians into action is not the kind of government most people want and that we are trying to exhibit the kind of considered action we want to see more of in our government? I would not consider doing one's homework and presenting a complete case "blackmailing", so perhaps that wasn't the best language for the author to pick.
I have some experience working on political campaigns (two local: one Congressional, one for local city council) and I'm active in my community on a number of other issues, so I'm aware of McCarthy's argument and how to wage it. And it would be valuable to do the research to be able to make that argument. But I think this is one of the weaknesses of the free software and open source movements--we don't mobilize our varied talents well.
Does anyone reading this have the skill needed to address the jobs concern? Or know of anyone who can help? We need help now.
I'm quite familiar with Stallman's excellent speech on the matter of software patents and how it adversely affects free software development. Part of that speech encourages us to consider that patents for one area of endeavor doesn't mean all areas of endeavor should have patents. Has this point been made clear to legislators? Has it been supported with examples of areas where patents would be a big problem (two hypothetical examples off the top of my head: legal argument strategies and surgical techniques--either of which could both lead to people losing their lives due to waiting for the patent holder to choose to represent or operate on them)?
The FSF is asking, not demanding, you call the GNU system with the Linux kernel "GNU/Linux" or some other name that gives GNU a share of the credit. Second, they aren't renaming or suggesting you stop giving Linux credit for being a major component in a GNU/Linux system. Linux is the name Linus Torvalds gave his kernel in 1991. GNU is the name of the free software operating system started in 1984. If anything, you have it exactly backwards--calling the entire operating system "Linux" refers to the GNU system by the name Torvalds uses for his kernel. I hope you'll take some time to read their FAQ on the issue.
These accomplishments continue to pay off today. The benefits of freedom don't stop even though the seminal documents were written almost 30 years ago. Your posts take on a tone of "yeah, but what have you done for me lately?" that comes off as though you think the FSF owes you something.
And what happened when you offered your assistance to the project by porting programs or writing documentation?
The "open" development process that was well established before the Free Software movement began (and thus before the Open Source movement began); the development process that RMS participated in the 1970s when he was hacking code at MIT about the time he had the now-famous incident with the printer software. The development process that comes from assuring people the freedoms to share and modify software--freedoms that were secured because of copylefted free software licenses (such as the GNU GPL) well before the Open Source movement existed? Development labor comes and goes, but other things are important too.
I see code being hacked (on Savannah and on specific projects like the Hurd) and I think it's great that that work is getting done. But even if I put that aside, I have to wonder: so what if the FSF is lobbying too? This doesn't stop us from hacking code if we want to. A lot of the challenges free software users face are political challenges, not calls for more code to be hacked. We need more free software programmers to be aware that there are political forces at work that control their ability to freely hack code.
I'd say their view of copyright law, software programming, and giving respect by calling things by their given name is considerably "grow[n] up". What you don't appear to understand is that SCO's language is purposefully unclear so they can leave their options open on what to sue for. The FSF was simply being thorough in their explanation by showing that SCO's language lead to a losing case.
No on both counts--their fear is probably closer to not having enough money to do all the things they want to do, and no you don't have any news for them. Perhaps you haven't been around long enough to know what contributions the GNU project has made to our community (ideological and programmatic). The political forces are at work challenge both the Open Source and Free Software movements and must be met by focusing our efforts on lobbying for political support, not just more code.
Getting a working GNU/Hurd system has been accomplished and looks to me like it is now in the stage where it is not ready for most computer users but it does boot. Improvements and extensions to the system (as well as getting the Hurd on a new microkernel) continue to arrive. This is all significant and needed progress but more code will not help stop harmful policies from being adopted under the cry of "harmonization" (such as EU adopting software patents or stopping the US Congress from extending the term of copyright again), nor will it stop various US states from adopting legislation that could (among other things) make it illegal to have a firewall unless the local telecommnications corporation says otherwise, or a host of other things that adversely affect our community. The FSF continues to speak on these issues and support Free Software development; the FSF is relevant nearly 30 years after they began.
Don't think that developing code must be done instead of working on other issues. All this and more needs to be done and is being done all at the same time.
However, this Slashdot thread is discussing Professor Chander's article on the issue which repeatedly makes reference to "Linux" as an operating system:
I am addressing his misuse of the term "Linux" which robs GNU of any credit at all. Your critique about SCO's claims should be directed to the professor because he clearly refers to the entire OS. The professor's reference is incorrect and does not indicate Professor Chander is cognizant of what Linux actually is--a part of the whole, something that deserves recognition, but not to the exclusion of other major pieces of the system (of which GNU is clearly one such piece).
To say GNU "has nothing to do with this lawsuit" is quite wrong. The license under which Linux is licensed came from the freedom-minded concerns of the GNU project (the GNU General Public License). It's great to be thankful for the software, but don't forget the community that grew up around the freedoms of free software. The GNU project proved we can all work together leveraging the power of a copyright regime against the proprietors that want our systems to vanish is also quite an accomplishment.
Which I never claimed, I said they were both valuable chunks of the system. I am glad you chose to include GNU in your list of contributors. I hope whatever components you select as major regularly includes GNU. I happen to agree with the GNU project's FAQ on this matter. Thanks for recognizing the GNU project's contribution!
The professor's article consistently fails to give credit where credit is due. "Linux" is not an operating system and it never was. Linux is a part of an operating system called a kernel (which acts as a bookkeeper managing the resources of a computer so applications can share those resources without conflict). It's fair to credit the major chunks of an operating system; GNU and Linux are both valuable chunks. It's also less confusing to the reader if one refers to the union of the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel by mentioning both parts (hence the term "GNU/Linux"). For the FSF's take on this, please read their essay which also has a link to a FAQ on this issue.
Also, the article inappropriately and inaccurately attributes the concept of copyleft to the Open Source movement. Copyleft, to quote the FSF, is "a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well". This concept and the term was invented by Richard Stallman, father of the Free Software movement. Stallman started GNU and the Free Software Foundation over a decade before the Open Source movement came along. He also defined the need for software freedom, something the Open Source movement eschews.
Finally, it would be nice if the professor clarified that the term "free" has multiple meanings in English and that the meaning which is most important for this discussion is the one referring to certain freedoms, not price. The "free" in "free software" has to do with the freedoms to share and modify software. The freedoms of free software are a big part of why the GNU/Linux system (and other free software systems) are worth using.
I hope the professor will find the time to correct the errors in his article.
Not at all. The GNU General Public License was written by the Free Software Foundation for the Free Software movement over a decade before the Open Source movement began. These two movements have different philosophies. Nothing in the pairing of the Open Source movement and the GNU General Public License tells you this. The Free Software movement supports the freedoms to share and modify software and compels you to notice that the benefits the Open Source movement champions come from the freedoms of Free Software (freedoms which the Open Source movement eschews).
People have to start somewhere to express their outrage at the corporation that helped put Dmitry Skylarov in jail. Fighting the DMCA is also very important, but Adobe should not be forgotten because they chose to leverage the DMCA against Skylarov. Fortunately a jury didn't see things Adobe's way.
I hope this page doesn't go away. I hope it is updated to the current state of the relevant U.S. patents on the LZW algorithm held by IBM and Unisys.
I hope the page doesn't go away because it makes a number of other points which are still valid including:
And I'm sure there are plenty of other valid observations. I consider that page to be a concise summary of some level-headed thinking on the subject of (what has come to be known as) software patents. It's often easier to point to that page than to get someone to listen to the speech on software patents or to read the entire transcript of the speech simply because the GIF page is shorter (but less comprehensive).
A correction: "copyleft" should read "non-copyleft" above. The problem with maintaining the freedom to share and modify programs is with non-copylefted Free Software licenses, not copylefted Free Software licenses.
Actually, the grandparent post was not a troll, but you rightly expressed a major problem the FSF has identified in a class of licenses called "copyleft". Unfortunately you have used terminology that suggests you misunderstand the philosophical basis of the movements you refer to.
Saying "The intent of GPL is to make sure that open code stays that way" can lead to confusion because you're talking about the GNU General Public License--a product of the Free Software movement, not the Open Source movement. The FSF wrote the GNU GPL over a decade before the Open Source movement began. More recently, they also wrote a description of troublesome language (including phrases such as "closed" source) so people won't confuse the goals of the Open Source movement with those of the Free Software movement.
And avoided endorsing a system they don't agree with by paying $50k for a halfway fix. As we have both noted, this would not have provided a real fix for those who want full MP3 support because it would not have covered encoders.
That's the goal, but I remain suspicious. I wouldn't be surprised if the system that lead to IBM and Unisys both being able to get patents covering the same algorithm also leads to one patent covering something ostensibly made available by the expiration of another patent. I don't have the time to lay my hands on a specific pair of such patents to point you to right now, but perhaps someone else reading this does. Given the number of patent applications the USPTO goes through, the nature of dealing with algorithms (in which there are many ways to express similar things), and the speed with which the USPTO does their work, I imagine it's very difficult to prevent accidents like this. I understand this can be resolved in court but I don't think that's a reasonable way to handle this particular situation. I would prefer to simply not have software patents anymore.
Internationally I think it's a different story--a US patent for LZW is expected to expire soon, but other patents covering the same algorithm abroad will expire later. Thus this algorithm will be simultaneously covered by patents and not covered by patents (assuming the LZW patent is not renewed) in countries which support software patents. This sounds to me like a problem for developers who want to release their software internationally and reduce their chances of losing a patent infringement lawsuit (which I think is reasonable).
To be fair, we don't know how much RedHat has budgeted for this (assuming they would want to engage in purchasing patent licenses at all) and Thomson might choose to not sell RedHat a license. Also I would wonder if the decoder license is still incompatible with Free Software licenses because of something in the text of the patent license.
I think courting a patent infringement lawsuit is unwise. I'm guessing RedHat agrees and that is why they removed MP3 software from their GNU/Linux distribution. It's disappointing you aren't citing any reason for disobeying the law other than your immediate desire. Nothing about challenging bad laws, raising awareness of a system that prohibits competing on merit, or working on a better solution--any of the reasons that might encourage people to agree with why you advocate infringing patents. You appear to advocate infringing patents just because you want these features and you're not willing to consider the long-term ramifications of these choices.
No, and fortunately for this case another algorithm was not patent-encumbered. As patents cover more ideas more algorithms will be cut off from implementation and the strategy that led to gzip will be cut off. Which strategy one can take to deal with a patent depends on the details of that particular situation. For programmers in countries that observe software patents, there's no known way to legally encode or decode MP3s without acquiring a license from Thomson. If Thomson decides not to sell you a license or if that license is out of reach, the developer loses and consumers lose from reduced competition. But you need not remind us of your solution--ignore the law because it gets in your way. I can only hope that any developer who doesn't have the US$50k or more to acquire an MP3 patent license somehow comes up with the money to defend themselves should they be sued for patent infringement.
Which the FSF, who wrote the GNU General Public License over a decade before the Open Source movement existed, asks you to call "non-free" or "proprietary" software, not "closed source". That way people don't get the wrong idea and think that their work has to do with the Open Source movement and that movement's different values.
Your description glosses over a number of pertinant details. Unisys and IBM were both issued patents covering a compression algorithm commonly used in GIFs (U.S. patents 4,558,302 and 4,814,746, respectively). This presented a problem for those who wanted to deal in the patented algorithm because it meant there were two organizations to deal with to comply, not just one. Generally, as patent law is "harmonized", it becomes easier for corporations (who hold the vast majority of patents) to prevent the spread of Free Software worldwide.
If either IBM or Unisys decided to not issue a license to Free Software developers, issue licenses that depend on a per-unit charge, or place limits on how implementations can use the covered idea (so-called "field-of-use restrictions"), we all lose.
As BurnAllGIFs.org describes, Unisys changed the terms on licensing and can do it again. Software patents in general and this patent in particular contribute to an uncertain playing field on which to distribute software that no reasonable person would dismiss so quickly.
That's not completely true and it doesn't accurately describe the situation in front of us now. According to mp3licensing.com, which details the licensing fees to distribute MP3 software, "[a] per unit royalty is taken on mp3/mp3PRO products and applications, such as ripping software, jukebox applications, mp3/mp3PRO-enabled CD/DVD players and portable mp3/mp3PRO players." Per-unit fees are incompatible with Free Software licensing because Free Software can be shared and modified freely, so there are no legal Free Software MP3 encoders. For decoders, one should look at the one-time license fee. The amount of money paid to Thomson depends on what is being licensed. The one-time fees start at US$50,000. How many of the programs you listed have paid the appropriate one-time fee to Thomson so they can legally distribute their programs in countries that honor U.S. software patents?
Nor were they meant to--quite to the contrary, leveraging the patents is done after the ideas described in the patents are in widespread use. Discovering a new format is patent-encumbered takes the shine off the new format. Awareness of the patents in both of the cases you talk about were raised after the public had widely used them. That's one of the ways patent holders make money. What's more socially relevant is what effect this has on the users, not some measure of popularity of a format.
RedHat received some press for removing MP3 decoding software from its GNU/Linux distribution. RedHat GNU/Linux is a very popular GNU/Linux distribution. So that means a lot of RedHat users lose unless they obtain a patent license or infringe upon Thomson's patent.
The effect on the users is what RMS' talk on this subject focuses on as well (approximately 17m into the talk, according to the transcript). RMS tells the story of a compression algorithm that was about to be used in a compression program but couldn't be used because a patent had been issued covering the very same algorithm. RMS learned of this patent a week before that program was set to debut. I doubt that is the only time a program "died before it was born" (quoting RMS' description of the program that implemented the patented algorithm).
I think you are glossing over some of the key points that make software patents so unpalatable to all but the richest businesses.with extant patents which they want to leverage against the public, or enough money so they can cross-license with the patent holder.
Just to illustrate how unfortunate that term is, one should know that it covers far more than just copyright and patent law. But even if the term "intellectual property" only covered those two parts of law, it would mislead more than it helped one's understanding of these laws.
Copyrights and patents are acquired differently, they grant different powers to the holder, they last for different amounts of time, and copyright covers specific expression whereas patents cover ideas. There is more dissimilarity between copyrights and patents than they have in common. Any reasonable critique of the problems with modern-day use of copyrights and patents should not gloss over these differences as if copyrights and patents can be talked about as a cohesive whole. Using the term "intellectual property" does not encourage understanding these distinctions.
Apple Computer, the newest music distribution company? Let's not forget that with Apple's newly acquired library of music they will (if they haven't already) be financially encouraged to join those who want everlasting copyright power. So, as someone should remind the /. audience who is quick to react to shiny new objects and services, don't be so quick to get warm fuzzies when you think of Apple Computer. There is a more important bargain with society that still needs to be addressed anytime we're talking about matters of copyright.
I saw Hollings on C-SPAN on June 2 shortly after the FCC voted to further deregulate media and I wasn't terribly impressed with what he added. I hope he was seriously against the 3-person FCC majority on this because this is one of the most important domestic issues. His stance against the FCC will help redeem my view of him as a legislator.
I thought Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was a far more powerful speaker because he understood the concept of "framing the debate". Framing the debate means you get to set the limits of allowable discourse--your terminology, your ideas, your way of breaking up an issue become the accepted way to think about the issue and anyone who expresses ideas outside that frame are often unjustly labeled "radical" or "extremist". Sanders hosted a town meeting with FCC commissioner Copps which produced valuable commentary including a discussion on the variety of ways Americans will feel the FCC's June 2 decision locally and nationally. Sanders also stayed late in the House and gave a "special order speech" in which he expressed his desire for the FCC to not allow further homogenization of media. This was on C-SPAN; sadly there were many empty seats behind him.
The book review states
The parent poster states
Neither of you appear to know what you're talking about when you argue in terms of "IP" (intellectual property). I would hope that this thread would bother to distinguish between the disparate areas of law that are covered under the largely useless term "IP".
Trademarks, copyrights, and patents (just to name three such areas of law) do not cover the same things, have different histories, raise different social issues, are acquired in different ways, and offer powers that last for differing amounts of time. Sometimes the power you gain via a copyright license conflicts with an extant patent. You simply cannot think clearly about these laws if you lump them together as if they were part of a cohesive whole.
For more criticism and enlightenment on the term, read the FSF's take on "intellectual property" and listen to RMS' talks on the U.S. Patent system or read the transcript. His breakdown of the major problems with patents on algorithms used in the development of computer software (so-called "software patents") are still very relevant.
The irony here being that (according to the article) "The announcement, made on Wednesday [August 28, 2002], stated that from now on, all software developed for the government must be licenced under the GPL." referring to the GNU General Public License, a license written over a decade before the Open Source movement began and written to ensure certain the freedom to share and modify software. Speaking in terms of freedom is eschewed by the Open Source Initiative.
I'm glad that the GNU GPL is getting more use and I welcome the efforts of any organization who wishes to encourage increased GPL use, but I also think it's reasonable to give credit where credit is due. Merely including a seminal license on a list of acceptable licenses does not compare with writing that license or sticking with the ideas expressed in that license.
It's great that you're getting so much use out of all the Free Software used in the development of the game (Ogg Vorbis, Gimp, GNU/Linux, and KallistiOS). Is the game you're distributing Free Software too? Under what license? I figured you might release your program as Free Software as a way to contribute your effort to the community that has apparently helped you so much.