"False" Open source Representative Tells EU Patents OK

Onno writes "Bruce Perens claims in this article That a false free software/open source advocate claims to EU parlement that software Patents are ok. " This is a strange article on a lot of levels so I'm gonna avoid commentary. You definitely should read it though- it's just that odd.

Ok....

[shish]

So we know we hate this guy and he'd never be our official representative, but who *is*? Everyone's views are different, but who is the most agreed with overall? poll?

RMS
Linus

Anyone else?

Re:Ok....

[Angry White Guy]

That is the problem with Open Source Software. There's no command structure, no CEO, no shareholders, nobody to 'officially' speak for us.

So the message can get muddled.

Re:Ok....

[Timesprout]

Yes but in this case it make open source look like a bunch of whining children crying wolf. Not really the impression you want to make when you trying to influence legislative bodies.

Re:Ok....

[stanmann]

If open source and free software proponents would write to their congressmen individually, with personal(not form) letters, 2-300 letters per senator/representative would have a much larger impact than a Special interest group representing 50,000 people.
this very closely maps to the theory behind the Star Trek phenomenon where all the fans wrote begging to keep the show on the air, and the powers that be... assumed that for every letter written, 10 were not...

Re:Ok....

[stanmann]

Nope, most senators cannot afford to ignore 200 letters that can represent as many as 5000 voters. Because for most Representatives and more that a few Senators, a 5000 vote swing which effects a change of 10,000 would change winning to losing. And 50,000 letters(distinct, not form) represent 50,000 people who are passionate enough to go out and vote. and 50,000 votes will swing any election....

Business decision

[SolemnDragon]

Congressional representatives assume the same thing- that written letters represent voting percentages. And as much as they love to have money on their side, and money wins elections- the money follows the people, as well. People who write letters to congress are likely to vote with their wallets as well as their words.

And it's a mistake to think that a few hundred letters won't help turn a tide. I live in MA. And my representatives send me form letters when i write in. But sometimes those form letters reflect that i'm definitely among a large number writing in... when i wrote to protest ANWR drilling... i got back letters explaining that the reps i wrote to "Won't let down the many concerned citizens," in the vote on the issue. (and they didn't.) Politicians know that they can get voted out of office- and that for every letter written, a chunk of money has just been allocated for or against their campaign, and in many cases they can look at the donation balance sheet, see which companies support or don't support the decision, and go for money from the companies supporting the decision LEAST likely to infuriate their constituents. Granted, it doesn't always work, it's not an ideal system. But a few tips for writing to congress:

always list the bill that you're concerned about, if you know the official title number.

stick to one issue per letter.

don't use form letters. If there's a service that will write them for you- and there are many online- see that you edit out catchphrases and change the wording enough to make it an original letter, not a 'boilerplate.'

Send it by mail if you can- physical mail means a lot.

USE YOUR ADDRESS. they need to know that you're a registered voter in their constituency.

be polite and to the point, and tell them that you are discussing the matter- and their response- with your friends, family, coworkers, anyone who will listen. That's gotten me much more personalised responses.

don't be afraid to call, fax, write to thank them after the vote, or express your disapproval with their vote, after the issue is voted upon.

I know that special interest groups have lots of power, and that's why we should support the ones who support the issues that we care about (like the EFF or the DEN) but we also have a strong voice, wehn we choose to use it, as individuals. If we don't speak up, we can't argue when our reps cave in to special interests with no dissenting voice from the public. And if there's one thing slashdotters are great at, it's dissent!!! (yay!!!!)

Re:Business decision

[Skjellifetti]

All of this is great advice. But it gets even better. I spent a summer working for as an intern on Capital Hill. One thing I learned is that, for an issue where the average voter doesn't really care or pay attention and which is likely to be under the radar of the average Congressman (i.e. software patents), two or three hand crafted letters can make a huge difference. It doesn't take two or three hundred letters to make a Congressman pay attention to your concern. A few individuals can have a disproportionate impact in this situation.

Of course, the key phrase here is "under the radar." Don't expect to have the same influence if you are writing about abortion, gun control, or tax cuts. But I do encourage you to write on the larger issues. You will still an impact, but the impact approaches zero as the number of people who care approaches infinity.

Dissent (was: Business decision)

[Anonymous Coward]

...And if there's one thing slashdotters are great at, it's dissent...

That's not true.

Re:Ok....

[Bruce Perens]

OK, I have cleared the foes list. It was some comment a while ago that must have convinced me you didn't have anything to contribute. Try again.

Bruce

Re:Ok....

[Angry White Guy]

I seem to have misconstrued myself a bit in my post.
I am not advocating any one official channel for the open source community. I am stating that any time you have a disorganized (for lack of a better term) command structure, you are going to have incidents like this. We, as the open source community can understand these outbursts. We are all trying to make a better product, a better community, a better life. Sometimes one of us will get out of line. Hell, I've shot off my mouth so many times I'm supri

Re:Ok....

[ichimunki]

Someone tell me what is "trolling" in this post:

It would have helped a lot, I think, if people like Bruce Perens had worked as part of the Free Software movement instead of confusing the issues with all the talk about Open Source. Not only that, the FSF has a clearly articulated and prominent (i.e. linked from their front web page) stand against software patents. Perhaps Bruce could work with OSI to get a similarly obvious kind of thing over at opensource.org. In fact, I can't find anything about patents

Re:Ok....

[Xtifr]

Someone tell me what is "trolling" in this post:

Looks more like grotesque ignorance than trolling, but slashdot doesn't have a "grotesquely ignorant" mod. :)

It would have helped a lot, I think, if people like Bruce Perens had worked as part of the Free Software movement instead of confusing the issues with all the talk about Open Source.

Since Bruce has been writing Free Software since before the label "Open Source" existed, and was involved with the Debian project back when they were strongly affilia

Re:Ok....

[RobotRunAmok]

So we know we hate this guy and he'd never be our official representative, but who *is*?

Never mind "this guy," who's this "we" you are talking about?

What Part Do We Understand?

[SEWilco]

"We" "need" "a" "representative"?

Re:Ok....

[gr]

So we know we hate this guy and he'd never be our official representative, but who *is*?

Working from Perens's:

it does not appear that he has any engagement with Open Source projects and developers, or that he brought this matter up with representative organizations such as the Free Software Foundation, the Open Source Initiative, and Software in the Public Interest.

it would seem reasonable to say that anyone who's setting out to represent open source and Free software at large probably ought to be in touch with [e-mail], [e-mail], and the individuals listed as members of the SPI board of directors here [spi-inc.org].

But generalizing your point is scary. The implication is that supporters of open source and Free software are effectively a mob that couldn't be represented by an individual (or even a small group of individuals), and that anyone who tries will be crucified for screwing up in whatever small way they did. I don't think that's happening here (software patents are one of those things that no human individuals could possibly like but that the corporate individual absolutely adores), but, depending on the results Perens's article, it sets a disturbing standard that stepping out of the (very much unclear ) Party Line enough that some respected member of the Community points out how you stepped out is enough to kill any notoriety and usefulness you may have had politically. It's a good way for the Movement to self-destruct.

The way around this amorphous mob problem, of course, is to have clearly-defined Leaders, which is what groups like the EFF and OSI are ostensibly trying to do, but they don't seem to be doing a wonderful job of it if /. editors refuse to state an opinion on the point and /. posters have to ask the question you did.

Re:Ok....

[ces]

Bruce
Alan Cox

Any number of others who are well respected within the Open Source movement.

Anyone from a number of companies that base their business on open source software; Mandrake, MySQL, etc.

Preferably the representatives should be people who are citizens of the EU as that in theory would carry more weight.

Bruce's article, in case of slashdotting

[Adam J. Richter]

[I've edited the HTML tags slightly to accomodate slashdot filters. Otherwise, this is Bruce's article unmodified.--Adam]

You may re-publish this message or excerpts of it.

FALSE OPEN SOURCE REPRESENTATIVE CALLS FOR EUROPEAN SOFTWARE PATENTS

A false or misled "open source representative" has signed an industry resolution calling for the EU to allow software patenting, which has been sent to members of the European Parliament. Copies of the resolution are here [perens.com] and here [ffii.org] . The European Legal Af

Typo

[Bruce Perens]

IEEE 1488 should be 1394.

Re:DEFINITELY not accidental

[Bruce Perens]

I fixed the typo on my own site after Adam copied the article.

He's really the last one I'd suspect as a crypto-fascist.

bruce

Contacting the EU

[GreyPoopon]

Bruce, have you attempted to contact anyone in the EU to express these same concerns? It would seem that perhaps implying intention to deceive prior to the vote would either get the vote delayed for an investigation or at least make people reconsider their position. I understand that you have to be careful about accusations, as we don't know whether this is deliberate deception or simply a case of being misinformed.

Now that's odd...

[davemabe]

It must really be an odd article if we should actually read the article before posting a reply.

Software Patents

[stanmann]

I understand that abusive software patents like One click shopping or adding 1+1=10, But for non-trivial items ... gif ie LZW compression algorithm, 7-14 years of protection is reasonable. So while Bruce Perens opposes patents on principle, obviously there is a sector of the open source movement that does not. Fortunately... or not... if you ask 4 open source advocates or community members what open source stands for you will get at least 6 answers. That is the strength of open source and free software.

Re:Software Patents

[gonvaled]

7 to 14 years of protection means that Free Software projects cease to exist, because they are technologically far behind - or they have to pay license fees, which is impossible. This is the only way Free Software can be stopped, and it is the way proprietary software companies are going.

Re:Software Patents

[Planesdragon]

The only solutions that I can see are for all software to be free software

Or, Free Software simply realizes that they're a long-term movement, and that 7-14 years to get at a competitor's IP is just the cost of doing business for them.

Re:Software Patents

[Bruce Perens]

So, you want Mozilla to be unable to display GIFs for 7 to 14 years? Of course the Welch patent is older than that, but consider if all Open Source software was prohibited from using algorithms that have been patented within 14 years. Who is going to be running free software if that's the case?

Bruce

Re:Software Patents

[stanmann]

Make something better. Some of us still have to work for a living. I respect those like Knuth who chose to release effective algorithms into the wild and are still able to put food on the table, clothes on their backs, and roof over head. But everyone can't go into teaching.

Re:Software Patents

[Bruce Perens]

I work for a living too. The folks at Unisys that assert the Welch patent are the ones who should be doing useful work instead of gumming up the software industry.

The nature of technical innovation is that ideas are built on top of other ideas. Progress is incremental and relies on previous discoveries. Software patenting prevents this.

Re:Software Patents

[dirk]

While it is true that technical innovation are built on top of other ideas, the driving force behind many technical innovations (as well as most other things on earth) is money. Having a limited monopoly on a creation encourages people and organization to invest more into R&D, because they realise they will have the opportunity to make back that money. There would be nothing stopping people from releasing their discoveries and patents to be used freely if they so which. There would be nothing stopping OSS from using patents that are either free, or paying to use other peoples discoveries. But it would also encourage more research, as a company would know it has 5 years (or however long it would be) to make their money back. Very few people/organizations can sink millions of dollars into research the "next big thing" with the expectation they will receive nothing in return.

Software patents should be run similar to drug patents. I short, set amount of time that the inventor controls the product, then it is fair game for anyone to copy.

Re:Software Patents

[Bruce Perens]

It would work the way you say in an ideal world. What we have instead is a telephone company enforcing its patent upon the operator of any web site that uses frames. Said telephone company did not invent frames, and its patent was trivial and should not have been allowed. Dynamic content embedded in static content. What an invention!

Bruce

Re:Software Patents

[royalblue_tom]

The trouble is, where is the line drawn between "obvious" patents, and new "inventions". The patent office has been notoriously bad in deciding these.

> There would be nothing stopping ...

Yes, there is. A patent these days is not considered a mechanism to earn your money back. It's considered a license to print money by gouging the market. For every individual who gets his patent in, the corporations will patent hundreds of blindingly obvious algorithms, if only to counter other patents. And corporations aquire rights in buy outs (cough! SCO cough!).

Remember, a patent is not a copyright. It's not protecting that exact implementation - it even prevents you doing the same thing another way. People already have copyright protection for their software.

Try writing software if someone got a patent for all the design patterns. Or for auto code generation. They don't really have to fight it in court because you personally probably couldn't afford the first round defending yourself (all the prior art not withstanding). And they know it. Some of these cases run to millions.

IANAL

Re:Software Patents

[UberLord]

You picked a bad argument there Bruce.
Mozilla or any other OSS program is able to display GIF's - what they cannot do is create GIF's without a license.

But I still agree that software patents are a bad idea.

Re:Software Patents

[Bruce Perens]

Unisys has attempted to assert their patent on readers. If you had to prove in court that they should not do so, you'd go broke first.

Bruce

Re:Software Patents

[Bruce Perens]

What could happen is bad enough that I don't understand why you would not want to talk about it.

There's this guy with a gun outside of my door, officer.

Has he shot you yet?
No.
Then why do you think he will shoot you? I don't see why we should do anything about it.

Well, it sounds as if we lost the TUX2 phase-tree filesystem, something very innovative, because its author was intimidated by a patent holder. We couldn't use public key encryption in free software for a long time. There is a NeXT patent that is keeping us from putting instant-test in our GUI construction programs. I could go on.

Bruce

Re:Software Patents

[Bruce Perens]

IF it violates patent
THEN it isn't Innovative

That's not the case at all. The nature of innovation is incremental. A patent will often be used below a new invention.

IF available public key encryption patented
THEN develop innovative public key protocol

Again you're missing the point. If the use of the one-way mathematical functions that enable public key crypto is patented, you don't necessarily have any alternatives.

Bruce

Re:Software Patents

[Bruce Perens]

Nope. If the use of one-way functions is patented, no one-way function will be available for use outside of the patent.

Bruce

Re:Software Patents

[Enry]

The patents cover the LZW compression algorithm, not the GIF file spec itself. Thus, there are other [sourceforge.net] ways to make GIF files that do not use LZW.

Let's face it. We're already in a world where there are software patents, and much like the Internet, Open Source (Free Software) has found a way to block it off, and route around it. We have PNGs and JPGs, OGG Vorbis and Theora.

What we really need to be worried about are patents that try to cover more than what they should. For example, a patent that covers a

Re:Software Patents

[Bruce Perens]

What about patents that are embedded in standards? Work around the patent and you're no longer interoperable.

Bruce

Re:Software Patents

[Enry]

Now you're nitpicking. What if my head turns into a block of gouda?

The standards change. Look at what happened when Unisys did pull their stunt with LZW. PNG and JPG suddenly became the 'in' thing, and there was a big public backlash. Enough so that Unisys pretty much backed down. I don't use GIFs for my graphics and it doesn't bother me in the least.

For patents covering standards that are already in place (say someone patents hyperlinks?), then it's up to the standards body or some other organizatio

Re:Software Patents

[Bruce Perens]

Yes, I will count on someone else, like the standards organization, ponying up the $500,000 for my defense. The problem with this is that lots of SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises) and open source developers are injured before the case is won.

GIFs could be replaced. Not all algorithms can. And your head is already a block of gouda :-)

Bruce

Re:Software Patents

[iplayfast]

Not only that but it takes time. PNG still isn't as popular as gifs, even though it's better. The reason is that GIF's are already present, so PNG must not only become popular, they must also displace something which is popular.

Re:Software Patents

[wurp]

No, the problem is BEING ABLE TO INTEROPERATE with other computer users.

Now, can we stop shouting?

Re:Software Patents

[Mr_Silver]

The standards change. Look at what happened when Unisys did pull their stunt with LZW. PNG and JPG suddenly became the 'in' thing, and there was a big public backlash.

There was? Funny, I didn't see it. In fact, I still see GIF's all over the place and very little (relativily speaking) PNG's.

Even this very own Slashdot page has 62 GIF's and no PNG's.

There was a backlash, but I definately wouldn't say it was big.

Re:Decompression is still allowed

[Bruce Perens]

The patent holder, Unisys never made it clear that decompression was allowed.

Bruce

Re:Software Patents

[Ed Avis]

The trouble is that what you advocate often means a lockout on free implementations of the file format for the patent's duration. Should a patent holder have the power to block competing programs by suing them if they try to use the same file format (such as GIF images)?

Surely a better balance is to use copyright to provide a monopoly on the original implementation, but allow competing implementations to exist too. If these other programs were written independently without using any of the original code,

O/S authors supporting software patents? Who?

[Adam J. Richter]

[...] gif ie LZW compression algorithm [...]. So [...] obviously there is a sector of the open source movement that does not.

Can you name some open source authors who support software patents? LZW is an example of a patented software algorithm for which people have written open source implementations. That does not make Liv, Zempel or Welsch open source authors.

In more than a decade of dealing with open source authors, I can only think of one who I know supports software patents, and he only became an open source author accidentally, as he seemed to fight pretty hard to prevent publication of some source code that he was wrote in school, and finally the organization that was involved published it years later.

The issue is not whether there are any open source authors at all who support software patents, but rather whether supporting software patents represents the general opinion of the "Linux/Opensource world", as Mr. Taylor's letter implies. If such a statement is not misleading, you should be able to name lots of open source authors who support software patents.

MEP contact?

[jez_f]

Does anyone here know how you can find out how to contact your MEP?

Re:MEP contact?

[Chris Croome]

Does anyone here know how you can find out how to contact your MEP?

There are some links on DMOZ [google.com] that look like they would help.

Re:MEP contact?

[UberLord]

Here's a easy way of finding out [europarl.org.uk] Amazing what a quick google search turns up :)

Re:MEP contact?

[Llanfairpwllgwyngyll]

www.europarl.org.uk/uk_maps/MembersMain.htm [europarl.org.uk]
is a good place to start - select region. Many of the MEP's publish email addresses on this site. What are you waiting for?

This just in...

[archetypeone]

The signature of the OSS impostor reads -

William Goats.

BTW, there's a petition against software patents

[Moderation abuser]

Only to Brussels unfortuantely.

http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html?LANG=en

Re:BTW, there's a petition against software patent

[BenjyD]

That page definitely wins the "Most annoying use of the Blink tag ever" award.

Join Stallman and Software SMEs to refuse sofware

[oever]

Conference Software patents 8-05
From: "Laurence Vandewalle"

Join Stallman and Software SMEs to refuse sofware patents !

On May 8 morning in European Parliament in Brussels (9:00-12:00 room 1G2) The Greens invite innovative software SMEs to voice their concerns on software patents. MySQL, Galeco, Ilog, Opera ...and many other will be accompanied by Richard Stallman.

After the conference a joyfull gathering "Free ideas for a free world" is planned in front of Parliament Place du Luxembourg with streettheater and a buffet. We need you !

Software are currently protected by copyright but there is a project for a European directive to legalize patents on software (com 2002-092). Although many Members of Parliament are aware that the patent system is not suitable for sofware, the rapporteur Arlene McCarthy (UK, Labour) is in favour. If Europe would adopt a system similar to the American system, 30.000 software patents waiting to be legalized would be inforced. Patents favour huge companies that can affoard a legal department, therefore harming small and medium-sized enterprises that create most of the innovation in the IT field. Patents are expensive, cause a lot of administrative work, are granted slowly and for a long period, while the life cycle of sofwtare is short ... Moreover, patents kill the free and open source software. The patent system does not fit softwares.

We call on software developpers, sofware companies, and all those who support copyright protection for software to come and address a clear signal to the European legislative body, shortly before the final vote takes place.

Registration and programme : Laurence Van de Walle
[e-mail] [phone]
http://www.greens-efa.org

This is part of a larger event "Software patents from legal worldplay to economic reality" with B. Kahin and Lawrence Lessig at the Dorint Hotel 7 May organized by FFII

SOFTWARE PATENTS AND EUROPEAN SME

A conference organized by the Greens-efa in European Parliament

Brussels Thursday 8 May 2003 9:00-12:00 room ASP 1G2

9:00 Welcome address by Dany Cohn-Bendit MEP chair Green-efa and Graham Watson MEP Chair ELDR

9:15 "The Commission's proposal in a legal perspective" by R. Bakels, university of Amsterdam, co-author study Juri 107
With the participation of E. Plooij-Van Gorsel (ELDR, rapporteur ITRE) and M. Rocard (PSE, rapporteur CULT, to be confirmed)

9: 45 "Economic consequences of software patents" by Ph. Aigrain, European Commission DG Infso
Chaired by MEP Neil McCormick
10:00 Panel I : "Innovative SME and Software patents" : Case studies

David Axmark, CEO MySQL (data bases) Sweden
Hakon Wim Lie, CEO Opera (makes sofware for Nokia) Norway
Pierre Haren, CEO Ilog (object-oriented software engineering) France
Wojtek Narczynski CEO Power Media (Custom web software) Poland
Thorsten Lemke, CEO Lemke Software (Graphic Converter) Germany
nn, CEO Symlabs.com (identity manager) Portugal

11:00 Public debate with MEPs and SMEs (Translationforge Sasu, ...)
Chaired by MEP Claude Turmes

11:30 Keynote speach : Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU project :"Software patents: restricting users and SMEs for the megacorporations ?"
Chaired by MEP Mercedes Echerer

12:00 Conclusion by Graham Watson MEP and Dany Cohn-Bendit MEP

After the conference a gathering on the theme "Free ideas for a Free World" with street theater and a buffet lunch is planned in front of the Parliament Place du Luxembourg.

On May 7 afternoon a conference "Software patents from legal wording to economic reality" with B. Kahin and Lawrence Lessig will take place in Hotel Dorint Bd Charlemagne 11-19 Brussels
http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2003/europa rl/05/07/

NB : the participation of MEP G. Watson is still to be confirmed
Translation is available in al EU language
Access in free however registration is mandatory

Patent it?

[ClosedSource]

I guess the only solution is to patent the free/open source movement.

Is there a summary of arguments

[Albanach]

Most of us know software patents are bad. Most of us object to them. However, has anyone compiled a list of reasons in nice, plain english (or other european langauge) that we can use to summarise the arguments to our MEPs.

These are busy people. They don't have the time or will to learn what it's all about - they need a summary that says what would happen, what's at stake and what their individual countries could lose out from if these patents are implimented. Has anyone worked on this?

Re:Is there a summary of arguments

[ces]

The LPF has some arguments against software patents on their web site. I think they include a 1 sheet summary.

Re:Is there a summary of arguments

[Tim Colgate]

The UK currently doesn't allow general software patents, but they did have a discussion on this a couple of years ago - you can read their comments here: here [patent.gov.uk]

A particularly interesting comment they made (with respect to business method patents, but equally applicable to software) was:

The Government's conclusion is that those who favour some form of patentability for business methods have not provided the necessary evidence that it would be likely to increase innovation.

This states that there has to be a clear benefit in order to change the status quo; businesses should have to show that without software patents they are unable to innovate. This is clearly not the case.

You can read an interesting summary of user comments here [patent.gov.uk]

Bring out RMS

[donscarletti]

RMS is practically the father of open source (free as in speech software), maybe not the first one to practice it but definitly the first one to turn it into a whole branch of ideology.

Rms put back-breaking effort into Open Source softwear while Linus was still in highschool. He didn't just work for broader acceptance of Open Source, he pretty-much created open-source, and created many of the open source tools that Graham Taylor is promoting making him far more credible.

Plus, he would rant, and rave so long that the eu would have forgotton about patents long before they figure out a way to get him to shut up.

RMS may be a jerk, but he is a great, admirable and inspiring one.

Re:Bring out RMS

[Eric Ass Raymond]

No, no, no! For the love of God, keep RMS locked in the basement!

He is an idealist, a true believer, who's incapable of a compromise. Yet, all professional politics is about achieving a consensus between all parties.

Any politican would categorize RMS as a "crackpot loony that should be completely ignored" in a second he opens his mouth.

Re:Bring out RMS

[gonvaled]

He may be an idealist but this does not mean that what he advocates can not be done.

It is a nice idea that we do not have to continuously reinvent the wheel each time we create a car. This way we can concentrate on improving the car or adding new gadgets. Besides, each improvement belongs automatically to humankind. Economically makes sense, and morally it is correct.

Can our representatives understand this? Who can explain this to them? I think RMS is quite capable of doing so.

discuss amongst yourselves

[Joe the Lesser]

So the premise is that someone came to speak about open source to the EU Parliament, but the are not a respected member of the open source community, as evident by their lack of support for it.

The real question is, who got this guy to speak? He was likely chosen for his viewpoints, regardless of how they represent the whole of the open source community.

What's exactly the problem?

[magi]

Did Perens actually read the statement?

3. The Directive should provide for a mechanism that ensures that open source software development will not be negatively affected. Amendment 17 empowers the European Commission to monitor the impact of the Directive on innovation and competition, and in particular on small and medium businesses. This mechanism will guarantee against any adverse effect of the Directive on the community of independent developers, in particular on those that are contributing to the development of open source software products.

That doesn't sound too bad. As Perens and rest of us are very worried about the future of independent OSS developers, some kinds of amendments might make the patent laws reasonable. I don't know.

For example, allowing strong software patentability and then relieving any OSS implementations from patent claims would actually make OSS a better choise than proprietary! Who would want to pay huge royalties when they can use an OSS implementation. On the other hand, such an amendment would create a loophole that would effectively nullify the patent laws as companies could release just the patented algorithm as a LGPL library.

I really don't believe the pro-patent people would want such loopholes, so it's unlikely that they would support very broad amendments. More likely, they might support amendments that deny suing of individuals while allowing suing companies such as Red Hat and other companies packaging and selling OSS. Such solution would make no difference to the OSS community, as the success of GNU/Linux strongly depends on the commercial exploitation of OSS.

Re:What's exactly the problem?

[Bruce Perens]

Yes, I read it. They say that by monitoring the damage and publishing articles about it, they guarantee against any adverse impact on Open Source. Isn't that absurd? They will measure the damage and tell people. That's the guarantee. It sounds like double-speak to me.

Bruce

Re:What's exactly the problem?

[Bruce Perens]

Well, consider that you are an open source developer. You get sued. You lose or settle. The patent holder gets your copyrights, your home, your car. The EU notes the damage and reports on it. How does this protect you?

Bruce

Re:What's exactly the problem?

[Bruce Perens]

You are not liable for damages before you are notified by the patent holder that you are infringing.

It would be nice if that were true. It's not. Sorry. Perhaps you are confused about the Doctrine of Laches. That says that if you delay prosecution until it is advantageous to you, you may lose the right to prosecute. But laches is hardly a get-out-of-jail card. It's a hard case to make, and generally the delay has to be 6 years or more for the court to accept it.

Bruce

Re:What's exactly the problem?

[Bruce Perens]

They don't have to tell you. Usually, they won't. They'd rather hide their cards. Submarine patents, ones that you didn't expect and then surface later, are legal. Lots of people view them as a money-making strategy.

And have you tried a patent search lately? Many software patents are so poorly descriptive of the invention that you are never assured that you're finished searching.

Bruce

Re:What's exactly the problem?

[sbwoodside]

That doesn't sound too bad. As Perens and rest of us are very worried about the future of independent OSS developers, some kinds of amendments might make the patent laws reasonable. I don't know.

That's right.

But there is something that we do know. The rule in Europe right now is good, there's no software patents, there's no risk at all for individuals, SMEs, and open source in general. All of the good things that you speculate might come from this clause already exist.

simon

I don't recall electing Bruce, either...

[Patman]

I find it funny that Bruce claims that this guy is a 'fake'. I don't recall electing Bruce to any position representing me as a free software user.

Graham's position may not be what I have chosen. It may not be what Bruce chooses, or what CmdrTaco
chooses. But it sure as hell doesn't make him a 'fake' anything. Bruce speaks of the "Linux, Open Source and Free Software movements" as if we are one big group of people who all feel precisely the same way about everything - namely, the way he does. I'm sorry someone disagrees with you, Bruce, but it's a big world out there, and that's gonna happen.

Re:I don't recall electing Bruce, either...

[Bruce Perens]

No you didn't elect me, at least if you aren't an SPI member. But I speak for a reasonable portion of the Free Software community. Graham has an opinion, but represents few (if any) of the Open Source and Linux developers. He has confused evangelism, which he is qualified to do, with representation, which he is not.

Bruce

Re:I don't recall electing Bruce, either...

[Bruce Perens]

We tried. The folks whose names are at the bottom of the alert contacted him. They got nowhere.

Bruce

Re:I don't recall electing Bruce, either...

[alkali]

When the very existence of OSS is anti-formalism, how do you declare someone as "qualified" or not?

The very existence of OSS is not anti-formalism. In particular, OSS relies very heavily on one particular formalism, the GPL.

When there's no qualifying process, there's no restrictions on who can declare themselves qualified.

We still have the social convention that words have meaning to fall back on. I can declare myself the king of Wisconsin and the greatest hitter who ever lived, and there is no "qualif

Re:I don't recall electing Bruce, either...

[agurkan]

Well no, we do not all precisely feel the same thing, of course not, just read /. from time to time. However there is a (although loosely defined) community that corresponds to "Linux, Open Source and Free Software movements". And that community has a general, repeat general not everybody's precise, opinion about software patenting issue. The point is not Bruce Perens represents this community better, it is that Graham claims to represent the community yet he contradicts the general opinion.
OK, after writi

Re:I don't recall electing Bruce, either...

[schon]

I find it funny that Bruce claims that this guy is a 'fake'.

I find it funny that this is addressed in the article (as well as numerous times in the comments here), and that even though you (evidently) didn't read it, you still think you're qualified to criticize Mr. Perens.

I don't recall electing Bruce to any position representing me as a free software user.

You know what, neither do I.

Perhaps that's why he doesn't claim to be. (He's always claimed to be an 'evangelist', not a 'representative'.

it sure as hell doesn't make him a 'fake' anything.

It most cetrainly does.

When someone claims to represent the opinions of a group of people, and he doesn't - and in fact presents an incorrect view of the vast majority of that group, that's fake - pretty much by definition.

Re:I don't recall electing Bruce, either...

[watzinaneihm]

Remember that Bruce did not send a petition to anybody claiming he was a representative. What he did is that he posted a comment about somebody posing as a representative on his webpage
In that sense all he did is same as what the parent poster (patman) did while he made the comment.He gave a disagreeing comment.
If Bruce sent in a counter-petition then he probably is (indirectly) claiming to be something. All bruce says he wants is that a representative should atleast notify the Opensource/Free mailing lists.Seems reasonable.

OpenForum Europe investigation

[aphor]

Their website appears to be running Linux Apache with ChiliSoft ASP and FP extensions [netcraft.com].. a Linux hosting service catering to Microsoft victims who purport to promote broader use of OpenSource software?

I don't think anyone who allows FrontPage extensions to run on their web site should be taken seriously as a Free Software or Open Source advocate. Reason being that mod_dav is standard and competely servicable for the same function (except it doesn't support Microsoft FrontPage authoring AFAIK).

It looks

Please back off in the "false" label

[(void*)]

This is making you look bad, Bruce. It appears that your quarrel with this guy is that he has made a weak defense of OSS. Work with him, show some faith. Show him how to make the defense against offenseive patents better.

Only label him false when all your positive advice is ignored.

Re:Please back off in the "false" label

[Bruce Perens]

Various European folks in our community have contacted him. He has replied with blather and generalities like "Europe is not going for a US-style patent system" to excuse himself. They appealed to me for help. Had they gotten any progress with him, I would not be writing the article.

Bruce

I Know...

[The-Bus]

Maybne this is the guy that stole Bruce's laptops at Linux World... although that could be one of 7,000 people [slashdot.org].

This Happens All The Time

[Romothecus]

This sort of thing happens with environmental and consumer issues all the time. Corporations fund groups that, on the surface, appear to be grass-roots, citizens organizations (real activists call them "Astro-turf" lobbies.)
For example, the "National Wetlands Council" presents itself as a citizen lobby that is concerned about the environment, but in relaity it's sponsored by the oil and real estate industries who want turn wetlands into shopping malls and drilling sites.
"Keep America Beautiful" is funding by the bottling industry and sponsors anti-litter campaigns while lobbying against any kind of mandatory recycling for the corporations.
"Consumer Alert" fights government regulations of product safety.
Massive industries funding what basically corporate front-groups is no surprise. Someone find out where that guy's funding come froms - I bet he has several large software companies behind. Since the average person, even the average legislator, doesn't undertsand the Open Source movement, it's easy for corporations to obscure the issue like this.

Loose Terms...

[BubbaTheBarbarian]

We...

Us...

Them...

We are using these terms just a bit too loosely all the way around here. I like the idea that Bruce is taking a stand that he feels is in line with the OSS community. However, it would have been better if he had done the same as is suggesting others do and mail the lists first telling them what is about to go down. Freewheeling responses and open flamewars between party's claiming to be "right" is what the OSS community is trying to get away from. I wish the article had his credentials on the front end so we know who he is and why he feels he CAN rep OSS.

This is in no way a critique of his efforts on behalf of OSS, but like many here, I like to know why someone feels they can talk for me before I give the okay that they can. Just because Taco says "go here and be loud" does not mean I am going to.

Bruce's arguments are well thought out in the line of support of no software patents. However, that is a split issue even in OSS in some areas (look at Click and Run from Lindows). The strife is only beginning, and if the OSS community does not soon agree to open dialog, all of the progress made to this point may be for naught. Rational thought and conversations should be tools, not flames and accusations.

"Some users have it coming...I am just the delivery mechanism."
-The BOfH

Some background on Graham Taylor

[jdfox]

Dubious beginnings in the Unix industry [theregister.co.uk]

Seems to think it's all about saving money up-front [theregister.co.uk]

Apparently used to work for Gartner, aieeee. [theregister.co.uk]

...and of course, was once a famously crap England manager. [englandfoo...online.com]

Explanation

[sbwoodside]

1. Software patents are currently not allowed in Europe.

That means, that in Europe there is no Amazon One-Click patent, no SCO lawsuit [slashdot.org], no Charles Northrup [slashdot.org] or this [slashdot.org], this [slashdot.org], another one from Bezos patenting web ads [slashdot.org], a Bezos patent on discussing products online [slashdot.org], software versioning [slashdot.org], submarine patents [slashdot.org], AOL [slashdot.org]...

2. This law will allow software patents if it passes.

3. It has a clause that would monitor the effects on OSS, and maybe, if negative effects are decided to be happening, try to limit those effects.

4. Some dude nobody's ever heard of claimed to represent OSS community and said it's a good idea.

5. Some other dude [advogato.org] said the dude in 4 is full of it in a posting on his home page.

6. said posting got slashdotted

7. You are here.

Re:Explanation

[JPMH]

1. Software patents are currently not allowed in Europe.

FWIW, the European Patent Office is now granting most software patents.

This draft law would confirm that what the EPO is doing is legal.

But other amendments have been proposed, which would make software patenting much more difficult again (how things used to be).

These other amendments desperately need support and lobbying.

See this post [slashdot.org] for more of the ugly detail.

We told you he was false

[WhiteDragon]

Nasty wicked tricksy falsesoftware patentssess! We hates them.

Software Patents = Patents on Math/Logic

[slipstick]

I have no formal training in CS but I've been coding for years and read extensively. My understanding is that an algorithm can be reduced to a mathematical construct(addition, subtraction, equality etc.). As such it behooves the proponents of software patents to show that all math is patentable. Last time I looked this still wasn't the case.

This ranks right up there with patenting genes.

They are discoveries not inventions. Imagine the chaos if we had allowed patents on the structure of the atom. "Look I've discovered the structure of gold. Anyone wanting to use gold must pay me in, umm, well platinum! Yeah that's it!"

Now the expression of that algorithm in software may be copyrightable(a different debate) or the wiring of it in hardware may be patentable.

I think that at the very least all software patents must express themselves in the underlying mathematics of how they operate. As such it would be obvious to any second grader that it's not a patentable object. If someone can come up with a way not to use this inherent attribute in an algorithm, well than that would be patentable.

Similarly the method/machine used in the discovery of the structure of a gene or substance would be patentable. That is the purpose behind patents and not simply patenting something just because you got there first.

"Look that big bright orange object in the sky I will call the sun. I patent the sun. Everyone wanting to use the sun must pay me in gold!"

Sue him?

[gr8_phk]

If this guy claims he's representing a group of people when he's not, they should be able to sue him. Especially if the EU decides to allow software patents. Oh right, you're not organized enough and don't have the money to pursue legal ends. Isn't that what the EFF is for? Where are they in all this? I know they don't want this legislation passed either, but what about going after this guy for misrepresenting himself?

Re:Elected role?

[samhalliday]

Linus Torvalds wants to incoroporate DRM, yet many others don't.

actually, you have taken it a little out of context... linus wants to code the ability for end users and distros to use DRM in the kernel; which may be a good thing for security (opposed to M$ reasons for DRM). he is not 'enabling' it. if i build a kernel, i can most certainly turn it off, and even if i run a DRM'ed redhat distro, i can STILL recompile and turn it off. in fact, i wont even need to turn it off, since off will be the default.

as to who is a representative, well we need more than one... RMS is willing, linus is not, and there are more movements than just GNU... open source groups also have head honchos and commities, and it is their job to sort it out.

the reason why these organisations (eg GNU, OSI) were set up was to allow them to take care of political and legal stuff in the big picture. if someone is really a part of the community, they will just keep coding and let those guys sort it out...

Re:Elected role?

[Angry White Guy]

Actually, I'd rather have Alan Cox rather than Richard Stallman representing me anyday.

He doesn't seem to be as blinded by ideals as RMS is. Plus Alan's got a better beard.

Re:Elected role?

[rifter]

And since Cox actually lives in Europe, in this case he probably would be the better choice between the two.

Has the UK joined the EU yet, though? Last I heard there was some wrangling over details...

Re:Elected role?

[oever]

But Linus Torvald is opposed to software patents [netcom.com]:

Linus Torvalds:

That's a real can of worms. Patents, especially software patents, are the worst thing that can happen to freely available software. It's just too dangerous to let people do patents on something that is fundamental research, in many cases, or patent a series of numbers like you mentioned. It does not make sense, and it's sad that it's allowed, and it's a real problem.

The only real solution is to

Hope that the patent expires which takes a long

Re:False representative?

[Bruce Perens]

Mr Taylor is welcome to have an opinion. But he is not welcome to represent the Open Source and Linux developer community by saying that software patents are OK with Open Source. He doesn't speak for us. He doesn't even know us. He seems to have confused evangelism with representation.

Bruce

Re:False representative?

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't speak for us. He doesn't even know us. He hurts us. He steals our precious.

Re:False representative?

[(void*)]

Software patents are not OK with Open Source, but are patents in general? The problem I have is that there are no genuine leaders in the open-source world. All we have are representatives. Thus it seems that hard work is necessary to reach consensus whenever some problem creeps up. It would be premature to make enemies out of someone with influence like that.

I agree that drawing the line around no software patents is a sensible way to go. But how many of free software advocates can agree to that?

Re:False representative?

[Bruce Perens]

The problem is that more and more things are becoming software. For example, VLSI (integrated circuit chip) designs are software. See opencores.org [opencores.org] for a vigorous Open Source community for hardware designs.

Bruce

Re:False representative?

[Zeinfeld]

Mr Taylor is welcome to have an opinion. But he is not welcome to represent the Open Source and Linux developer community by saying that software patents are OK with Open Source.

I cannot tell from your article what exactly he has done. I can see you make some allegations but they are mighty short on specifics.

I tend to avoid such catfights between people trying to lead a movement. I think less of RMS for his tactics. When someone makes an accusation of this type they tend to be someone who thinks that

Re:False representative?

[oever]

One can believe in the word and principle of Free Software (narry the GNU definition) and Open Source and still believe that software patents are valid.

It's very difficult to do so. Writing code is much less effort than checking whether you code infringes certain patents. This means that for each programmer that writes free or open source software, you need few lawyers to ensure that her code is not infringing any patents. This is an unworkable situation. People will become afraid to write and distribute

Re:Minor error

[Bruce Perens]

You're right.

Bruce

Re:Question

[UberLord]

I would assume so - unless someones using his /. account for posting in this story

Re:Just to play devils adocate

[schon]

I'll ignore your straw man (and hence, troll) for a moment, but did you actually read the article?

If this is the case they why the fear of patents

Read the article. It sums this up quite nicely.

Specifically, here's what you should be looking for:

Since we do not collect royalties from the distribution of our own software, we have no funds to pay royalties to patent holders. Rather than sue us to collect money, expect patent holders to sue Open Source developers to restrain them from distributing their

Re:Reminds me of a fundamental schism

[Bruce Perens]

Well, not worrying about the legal ramifications much works great, when nobody else is worrying about them either. The problem is that we are living in a world where people are thinking about new ways to lock down the software industry to their own advantage, and are going to court about it. Not worrying means not protecting yourself.

Richard predicted much that is now happening when he started the GNU project in '84. This was most poignant when DMCA and then the Hollings bill were proposed. What might have sounded like paranoia before, started to look a lot more like common sense.

Bruce