China's filter is also bypassable. I assume want it that way. The strategy is to ensure that the young and the very concerned have ways to protect themselves individually, to avoid having them motivated to look into organised ways. A classic way to take the wind out of people power.
The patented stuff is the "claims". You'll find them hidden, starting somewhere within a brick of text. Harder to find than the abstract, but they're the thing that count.
there seems to be confusion spread about the GPLv3, based on a Reuters
article published today and copied to several locations, including
MSNBC from where Slashdot grabbed it. Unfortunately in this article
Reuters displayed some items of pure speculation as facts and in doing
so oversimplified them to the extent that they became false.
The true news is what you can see in this release: We have begun
preparing the GPL Version 3 process for real and there will be a long
discussion throughout 2006 about the changes made. Since that process
will be quite a lot of work, the Free Software Foundations are very
happy that Stichting NLnet supports this process and hope that others
will do the same.
As to what the GPL version 3 draft will contain: Noone has that
information right now, it is all in Richard Stallmans head, who has to
gather the ideas and get to work on the draft. Until that draft has
been published, everything is pure speculation and your guess is as
good as mine.
Reuters picked up strongly on two of the the points which were made
before by Eben Moglen in the eweek article and quoted me falsely. They
later did some slight improvement in terms of reducing the
oversimplification, but still portrayed things in a rather one-sided
way, in particular making mere speculation seem fact, while ignoring
the true facts.
So the best thing you can do is to ignore that article.
It is FUD and I am deeply sorry for this, for I have been centrally
(if falsely) quoted as the contributor of it.
.Net is being patented to the hilt - and MS, not de Icaza, own all the patent.
MS are defining all the data formats. If one of them is wrapped in encryption, it will be a DMCA violation for us to write software to read that data format.
Mono may be useful - if MS.Net dominates the world, Mono may make it easier for people to migrate to free software, but MS are going to make that as hard, and as illegal, as possible.
I think I'm glad it exists, but I hope we never need Mono.
Software patents? -There are >100,000 software idea patents filed in the USA, if Australia has to broaden the scope of it's patent laws to the scope of the USA's laws, that's 100,000 jobs that free software can't do.
The digital broadcast flag is another - as mentioned in the article. Anything with a screen larger than 13 inches would be classed as a TV, and only software which can't be fixed/improved will be allowed to read digital TV signals.
About the DVD example: it's not just DVDs, under the DMCA/EUCD it's illegal to circumvent encryption to access copyrighted work. Today this prevents free software hackers from writing DVD players, but what if Microsofts next version of MS Word uses an encrypted file format with some of the default+necessary parts of the file format copyrighted? yup, wrap anything in encryption, and free software can't legally access it.
I'm working mostly against software patents in the EU, but Trusted Computing is going to be a BIG problem. If you know what to do, maybe I could help, or I could encourage others to help.
What are you doing to stop it becoming required by law?
In the 80's, there was a GCC Public License, an Emacs Public License, and a GDB Public License. This made it awkward for people to mix the source code of these projects, so Stallman wrote a General Public License. The goal was to enable projects to share code. (remove the legal reading and interpretation and let hackers hack.)
Every now and again, someone who doesn't know the history, repeats it's mistakes.
Stallman asks people to use the GPL, but he doesn't take issue with people using other compatible licenses. He asks people to move to a compatible license - not necessarily the GPL - if their current license is incompatible. He's seen the problem, he's seen the solution, he tries to show people the two.
Moglen was a programmer back in early the 70's. He wrote free software, not because of his ethics, but because all software was free back then. Software was a tool for users, and users were allowed to fix and improve the tools.
Anyone could contribute to the state of the art by making a small contribution to the edge.
The current proprietary regime blocks that. If you want one more feature in a proprietary word processor, you'd have to write a whole word processor first, and people won't do that. Not by themselves anyway. Abiword, Kword - and many other free projects - are proof that people will eventually get so frustrated that they will write a whole word processor.
Wiki's are a good example of what Kay says the internet should be like. I know they're not peer-to-peer, but the have the authoring bit to a t.
But what's "our position"? I see a lot of posts about getting an "approved Linux DVD player". I think these posts miss the big point.
Someone will, eventually (or already?) make a proprietary DVD player for GNU/Linux, and then people can install it, and then where will we be? We'll be as good/bad as Microsoft Windows.
GNU/Linux is a nicer OS to use because everyone's free to share it and collaborate in it's development. Free software DVD players can't be produced because they are prohibited by the DMCA.
The goal was freedom and we've come too far to give up on that. We don't need an "approved" player, we need permission for the public to write DVD players.
Governments should never make the product of a monopoly mandatory.
Mandatory single sourcing from a non-competitive market leads to bad design.
For one thing, if all bandsaws must have SuperStop technology, the owner of the patented SuperStop technology suddenly has complete control of who can make bandsaws.
Why make a 6 stops SuperStop when there's no competition against the current 1 stop model?
Yes this technologies great, yes people who say "but I'm too careful" are idiots, no this patented technology shouldn't be mandatory.
Neither "Open Source" or "Free Software" contain a complete explanation of what they mean.
"Open Source" can be confused with viewable source. MS can compete against that.
"Free Software" can mean libre or gratis, MS can't compete with either of those meanings.
MS have marketing and business analysts thinking about things like this. They've chosen to say "open source" (and "Linux" for the OS). This should be enough to tell us that these terms are not what we should be using.
Winning depends on us being free to develop and distribute software for all useful purposes. The threats to us are in the form of taking away these freedoms (through DMCA, patents, and Paladium). It's never been about "open", it's about "free".
Slashdot Mirror
Luckily for democracy, the process is leaking like an old bucket anyway.
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help in documenting this is very welcome.
China's filter is also bypassable. I assume want it that way. The strategy is to ensure that the young and the very concerned have ways to protect themselves individually, to avoid having them motivated to look into organised ways. A classic way to take the wind out of people power.
The patented stuff is the "claims". You'll find them hidden, starting somewhere within a brick of text. Harder to find than the abstract, but they're the thing that count.
> the chances of actually outbidding a rich space enthusiast is
Ok. And what is the chances of writing stories in good English? ;-p
They're as bad as Microsoft:
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
I've gathered some info already about the patent problems that have arrised around the iPad:
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
Documentation of this has been ongoing for a few months now:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/New_Zealand
Ah, never mind, you're probably not smart enough to take the money.
Please help document there here:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
en.swpat.org is a way to build a wealth of info for when we need it.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_text
I'm typing up the whole thing, for easier reading, searching, copying
Here's a statement from Georg Greve:
there seems to be confusion spread about the GPLv3, based on a Reuters article published today and copied to several locations, including MSNBC from where Slashdot grabbed it. Unfortunately in this article Reuters displayed some items of pure speculation as facts and in doing so oversimplified them to the extent that they became false.
The true news is what you can see in this release: We have begun preparing the GPL Version 3 process for real and there will be a long discussion throughout 2006 about the changes made. Since that process will be quite a lot of work, the Free Software Foundations are very happy that Stichting NLnet supports this process and hope that others will do the same.
As to what the GPL version 3 draft will contain: Noone has that information right now, it is all in Richard Stallmans head, who has to gather the ideas and get to work on the draft. Until that draft has been published, everything is pure speculation and your guess is as good as mine.
Reuters picked up strongly on two of the the points which were made before by Eben Moglen in the eweek article and quoted me falsely. They later did some slight improvement in terms of reducing the oversimplification, but still portrayed things in a rather one-sided way, in particular making mere speculation seem fact, while ignoring the true facts.
So the best thing you can do is to ignore that article.
It is FUD and I am deeply sorry for this, for I have been centrally (if falsely) quoted as the contributor of it.
That has been a most unpleasant experience.
Regards,
Georg Greve
FSFE, President
> From the article:
The article is wrong. Unfortunately Georg Greve has been misquoted. (I've heard from him by email.)
Some GPLv3 information from the horse's mouth is in the recent FSFE press release about the GPLv3 process.
.Net is being patented to the hilt - and MS, not de Icaza, own all the patent.
MS are defining all the data formats. If one of them is wrapped in encryption, it will be a DMCA violation for us to write software to read that data format.
Mono may be useful - if MS.Net dominates the world, Mono may make it easier for people to migrate to free software, but MS are going to make that as hard, and as illegal, as possible.
I think I'm glad it exists, but I hope we never need Mono.
Maybe they're talking about Linux, the OS?
Software patents? -There are >100,000 software idea patents filed in the USA, if Australia has to broaden the scope of it's patent laws to the scope of the USA's laws, that's 100,000 jobs that free software can't do.
The digital broadcast flag is another - as mentioned in the article. Anything with a screen larger than 13 inches would be classed as a TV, and only software which can't be fixed/improved will be allowed to read digital TV signals.
About the DVD example: it's not just DVDs, under the DMCA/EUCD it's illegal to circumvent encryption to access copyrighted work. Today this prevents free software hackers from writing DVD players, but what if Microsofts next version of MS Word uses an encrypted file format with some of the default+necessary parts of the file format copyrighted? yup, wrap anything in encryption, and free software can't legally access it.
Great!
I'm working mostly against software patents in the EU, but Trusted Computing is going to be a BIG problem. If you know what to do, maybe I could help, or I could encourage others to help.
What are you doing to stop it becoming required by law?
In the 80's, there was a GCC Public License, an Emacs Public License, and a GDB Public License. This made it awkward for people to mix the source code of these projects, so Stallman wrote a General Public License. The goal was to enable projects to share code. (remove the legal reading and interpretation and let hackers hack.)
Every now and again, someone who doesn't know the history, repeats it's mistakes.
Stallman asks people to use the GPL, but he doesn't take issue with people using other compatible licenses. He asks people to move to a compatible license - not necessarily the GPL - if their current license is incompatible. He's seen the problem, he's seen the solution, he tries to show people the two.
Another on-topic article is David Wheelers "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else."
yeh, replying to my own post.
Moglen was a programmer back in early the 70's. He wrote free software, not because of his ethics, but because all software was free back then. Software was a tool for users, and users were allowed to fix and improve the tools.
Anyone could contribute to the state of the art by making a small contribution to the edge.
The current proprietary regime blocks that. If you want one more feature in a proprietary word processor, you'd have to write a whole word processor first, and people won't do that. Not by themselves anyway. Abiword, Kword - and many other free projects - are proof that people will eventually get so frustrated that they will write a whole word processor.
Wiki's are a good example of what Kay says the internet should be like. I know they're not peer-to-peer, but the have the authoring bit to a t.
Software was meant to be free.
I think Eben Moglen puts it better in this interview.
Valenti was an advocate of public debate. I hope this guy is too, but Valenti's openness was unusual. Here's an mp3 of a debate between Lessig and Valenti (although I side with Lessig on the issue, I'd score Valenti as the winner of that debate). And here's the interview of Valenti by the MIT student.
But what's "our position"? I see a lot of posts about getting an "approved Linux DVD player". I think these posts miss the big point.
Someone will, eventually (or already?) make a proprietary DVD player for GNU/Linux, and then people can install it, and then where will we be? We'll be as good/bad as Microsoft Windows.
GNU/Linux is a nicer OS to use because everyone's free to share it and collaborate in it's development. Free software DVD players can't be produced because they are prohibited by the DMCA.
The goal was freedom and we've come too far to give up on that. We don't need an "approved" player, we need permission for the public to write DVD players.
Governments should never make the product of a monopoly mandatory.
Mandatory single sourcing from a non-competitive market leads to bad design.
For one thing, if all bandsaws must have SuperStop technology, the owner of the patented SuperStop technology suddenly has complete control of who can make bandsaws.
Why make a 6 stops SuperStop when there's no competition against the current 1 stop model?
Yes this technologies great, yes people who say "but I'm too careful" are idiots, no this patented technology shouldn't be mandatory.
"freed" implies that the software was once unfree. OpenOffice is freed software, but GNU Emacs, for example, was never unfree.
The European Commission call it "Libre Software" - as a multilingual unambiguous term.
Neither "Open Source" or "Free Software" contain a complete explanation of what they mean.
"Open Source" can be confused with viewable source. MS can compete against that.
"Free Software" can mean libre or gratis, MS can't compete with either of those meanings.
MS have marketing and business analysts thinking about things like this. They've chosen to say "open source" (and "Linux" for the OS). This should be enough to tell us that these terms are not what we should be using.
Winning depends on us being free to develop and distribute software for all useful purposes. The threats to us are in the form of taking away these freedoms (through DMCA, patents, and Paladium). It's never been about "open", it's about "free".
A missing . Fixed now, thanks.