For companies who believe they live or die on their 'trade secrets' and intellectual property, the thought of loosing those things is anathema to them. What the open source community needs to do is have agents (like VA Research, etc) who secure software patents on our behalf. There's nothing stoping a commercial enterprise from recoding some algorithm which happens to be part of an open source project. We do the innovation, and they benefit freely from it.
If the algorithms themselves were patented, then we could set any price we want for licensing those technologies to companies. A small company developing some product might have to make a donation to the FSF, or donate X hours of a workers time to helping the community. Perhaps the biggest win for us would be exchanges with large companies who would really benefit from algorithms developed within the open source community. We can say, we will make this algorithm free to everyone, if you do the same with such and such a patent.
What we would need would be a project which manages the intellectual property of the open source community. This project would aim to ensure that the only one's using the patented algorithms are open source projects or those who have made specific arrangements with the project.
Microsoft in particular is going to use its intellectual property as a weapon against open source software. They will patent every silly thing they can, and use their enormous resources to enforce them. Some of these patents will (and do) be very simple and fundamental to the software we develop. And sometimes we won't be able to conceive of alternatives which are as good.
In short, we can have some real bargaining power, and beat these guys at their own game, or we can moan a lot. Getting rid of software patents is just too much of a big ask. Given that many people in the open source community are university researchers, we would definitely have an edge over the competition in terms of innovation.
There is something I think we in the Linux community aren't being completely honest about. Sure, the number of new Linux software applications in development are astonishing, and yes these applications are more than a match for the offerings of conventional software houses. But I think we are perhaps in too much of a hurry to show off these new developments, because they are for the most part in development - a great number in very early stages of development - and people out there in the world, including the media, are mistakenly beginning to think that these applications are what is on offer from the Linux community.
The result is that tens of thousands of people who are new to the Linux community - including the media - download the latest development releases of things like Gnome, Enlightenment, etc., and then get frustrated with stability issues, poorly implemented features, or just installing the thing!
Part of the problem is that so much has been happening over the past year that most Linux applications are in development. There are so many unfinished applications on offer that it is difficult for people to even find stable applications that they can use.
We really need to emphasise to new users and the media that Linux _is_ super stable and a promising alternative to other OS's, but _only_ if really stable, and usually fairly mundane, applications are used.
People used to the Windows world are accustomed to downloading every update they can find. This is not a safe policy in the Linux world because most of the time these 'updates' are untested.
We and the media has created a situation where new Linux users are hungry for every new and glossy app we can develop. The hype, in my opinion, is getting a little out of hand, and people are being mislead.
Why don't we encourage RedHat or one of the other Linux distributors to counterbalance their RawHide distribution with a RockSolid distribution. Hence we coud always point the media, business users, and new Linux users to the RockSolid distribution, and keep them enthused about Linux by keeping them informed of what applications will soon be declared 'rock solid'.
Hey, I'd like to voice my support for Freshmeat. I don't care what it looks like, as long as it continues to provide the exemplary service has for so long. I have no doubt that this will be the case. Freshmeat and Slashdot are my main sources for Linux software and info, and I think those who can't be positive about any changes to Freshmeat should seriously think about the time and effort the site has saved them. Positive criticism is fine, but flaming just lets the whole community and open source ethic down. I remember being similarly ashamed during the KDE/Gnome wars. Common people, we are only helping the FUD mongers!
Slashdot Mirror
For companies who believe they live or die on their 'trade secrets' and intellectual property, the thought of loosing those things is anathema to them. What the open source community needs to do is have agents (like VA Research, etc) who secure software patents on our behalf. There's nothing stoping a commercial enterprise from recoding some algorithm which happens to be part of an open source project. We do the innovation, and they benefit freely from it.
If the algorithms themselves were patented, then we could set any price we want for licensing those technologies to companies. A small company developing some product might have to make a donation to the FSF, or donate X hours of a workers time to helping the community. Perhaps the biggest win for us would be exchanges with large companies who would really benefit from algorithms developed within the open source community. We can say, we will make this algorithm free to everyone, if you do the same with such and such a patent.
What we would need would be a project which manages the intellectual property of the open source community. This project would aim to ensure that the only one's using the patented algorithms are open source projects or those who have made specific arrangements with the project.
Microsoft in particular is going to use its intellectual property as a weapon against open source software. They will patent every silly thing they can, and use their enormous resources to enforce them. Some of these patents will (and do) be very simple and fundamental to the software we develop. And sometimes we won't be able to conceive of alternatives which are as good.
In short, we can have some real bargaining power, and beat these guys at their own game, or we can moan a lot. Getting rid of software patents is just too much of a big ask. Given that many people in the open source community are university researchers, we would definitely have an edge over the competition in terms of innovation.
Hi all,
There is something I think we in the Linux community aren't being completely honest about. Sure, the number of new Linux software applications in development are astonishing, and yes these applications are more than a match for the offerings of conventional software houses. But I think we are perhaps in too much of a hurry to show off these new developments, because they are for the most part in development - a great number in very early stages of development - and people out there in the world, including the media, are mistakenly beginning to think that these applications are what is on offer from the Linux community.
The result is that tens of thousands of people who are new to the Linux community - including the media - download the latest development releases of things like Gnome, Enlightenment, etc., and then get frustrated with stability issues, poorly implemented features, or just installing the thing!
Part of the problem is that so much has been happening over the past year that most Linux applications are in development. There are so many unfinished applications on offer that it is difficult for people to even find stable applications that they can use.
We really need to emphasise to new users and the media that Linux _is_ super stable and a promising alternative to other OS's, but _only_ if really stable, and usually fairly mundane, applications are used.
People used to the Windows world are accustomed to downloading every update they can find. This is not a safe policy in the Linux world because most of the time these 'updates' are untested.
We and the media has created a situation where new Linux users are hungry for every new and glossy app we can develop. The hype, in my opinion, is getting a little out of hand, and people are being mislead.
Why don't we encourage RedHat or one of the other Linux distributors to counterbalance their RawHide distribution with a RockSolid distribution. Hence we coud always point the media, business users, and new Linux users to the RockSolid distribution, and keep them enthused about Linux by keeping them informed of what applications will soon be declared 'rock solid'.
Hey, I'd like to voice my support for Freshmeat. I don't care what it looks like, as long as it continues to provide the exemplary service has for so long. I have no doubt that this will be the case. Freshmeat and Slashdot are my main sources for Linux software and info, and I think those who can't be positive about any changes to Freshmeat should seriously think about the time and effort the site has saved them. Positive criticism is fine, but flaming just lets the whole community and open source ethic down. I remember being similarly ashamed during the KDE/Gnome wars. Common people, we are only helping the FUD mongers!
Espressoman.