BSA Wants EU Open Standard Policy Reconsidered 191
XeRXeS-TCN writes "Benoît Müller of the BSA has written an open letter to the EU, criticising their focus on open standards for interoperability, as this would exclude things like DHCP, 802.1X and GSM. He also says that framework "shouldn't imply a link between open source and open standards"."
EU Icon? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:EU Icon? (Score:3, Informative)
Not Necessary (Score:2)
Re:EU Icon? (Score:2)
Re:EU Icon? (Score:2)
Re:EU Icon? (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, the 12 stars do not represent the 12 fouding members.
In 1955, The European Community had only 6 members, and no flag. That flag was the European Council's flag, and that organization had nothing to do with what would become the CEE. The European Council had more than 12 members, yet had chosen to have 12 stars on the flag because the number 12 was a symbol of completeness, and the circle a symbol of unity. The European Council then offered to all the other european organizations to share that sam
Re:EU Icon? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a nice thread. Not so much because of the content (which is slightly inane) but since it sort of embodies the underlying idea of open source (software, science, knowledge, etc.) that involving many voluntarily in the process of bringing about a thing will gradually lead to improvement of that thing and in fact movement towards an optimal form of that same thing. The constant wonderment at seeing this process in action is one of the things that so attracts me to initiatives like the Wikipedia.
At th
Re:EU Icon? (Score:2)
At this point, let me offer one final revision: in 1955 the European Community had no members. It was founded in 1957. In 1955, the European Coal and Steel Community has six members.
Right.
Re:EU Icon? (Score:2)
I don't remember which French writer said (in French) : "There is nothing one can't prove if one is stubborn enough."
The wackos who absolutely want Europe to assess its christian origins have found all sorts of signs, coincidences, numbers proving their point. I have even heard them saying that 55 is Satan's number ! Bullshit.
Mind you, I don't negate the christian heritage, but the birth of the European Council, of the CEE, and all the European organizations have nothing to do with God, Jesus Christ, the
eNough (Score:5, Funny)
Re:eNough (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds of Victory (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sounds of Victory (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm having trouble understanding all this. Hopefully, one day, one of these two corporations can explain it to me, preferably in a nice, simplified language with all the unnecessary words removed. That'd be double-plus helpful.
Re:BSA? (Score:2)
How surprising! (Score:5, Insightful)
If open standards and open source software were to become prevalent, how would they shake down [linuxelectrons.com] companies?
you must be an expert (Score:2)
Best quote ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yes, I'm crying my eyes out over that one.
Re:Best quote ever (Score:5, Insightful)
But the use of patented technology in standards is "the reality today," he said.
But it won't be the reality tomorrow, Müller. So get back in your horse and buggy and go tell Bill that the slaves are revolting, that the chains of legal chicanery are being broken, and a new Age of Reason is dawning.
Re:Best quote ever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Best quote ever (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, the following sentences are also relatively amusing.
"allow standards to include patented technology as long as the patent owner licenses the patent claims on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, he said. "
I think the "nondiscriminatory terms" here means that everyone gets hit just as bad. I guess it's just fine if you charge everyone equally.
Still, the quote is pretty nice. He could have just summed it up by saying "how can we make money out of this?".
Re:Best quote ever (Score:2)
Of course there is money being made, just not by non-valuable methods. I wonder if health care will turn down this road one day.
Re:Best quote ever (Score:2)
I'm against software patents, but blocking patents altogether seems like a pretty bad idea to me.
Re:Best quote ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best quote ever (Score:3, Insightful)
And 990 out of 1,000, it's some American megacorp.
Now I've not got anything against American companies as such, but one of the reasons for the formation of the EU is to unite Europe into a trading bloc to match the size of the USA, to be able to compete with it on equal terms.
So why should the EU pass laws that would tend to favour large American companies to the detriment of (often smaller) European ones ?
Sadly, there is a reason why it might - po
Re:Best quote ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best quote ever (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm against software patents, but blocking patents altogether seems like a pretty bad idea to me.
You don't need a patent to make $$$. Like the old saying says - "You don't need a patent on bread to make a living as a baker."
Old saying? (Score:2)
Is that an old saying, or something you just made up and called old so it would have more gravitas? It can't be that old a saying, since it refers to patents.
I only ask 'cause I like it, and it's going in my quotefile.
--grendel drago
Re:Old saying? (Score:2)
Re:Old saying? (Score:2)
Somewhat unrelated: if someone makes a statement beginning with "As the old saying goes," and it turns out they came up with it, have they waived their copy rights?
Re:Old saying? (Score:2)
It's at least two or three days old, cause that's when I saw it on Slashdot the first time.
I don't actually know how old the saying is, and I claim no credit for inventing it. Hopefully the other guy who said it here on
Patents won't help you, small inventor (Score:5, Informative)
Legendary electronics hobbyist Don Lancaster has what I consider to be the must-read page on why patents never help the individual inventor: Patent Avoidance [tinaja.com].
Re:Best quote ever (Score:2)
Why?
I'm serious. Why would getting rid of all patents be a bad idea? Yes, I know, I know, they benefit society. But do they really? Do you know them to be a benefit, or do you take it on faith because they have been telling you all your life?
Maybe someone can respond with a credible study in support of the patent system. I'm still looking for one.
Re:Best quote ever (Score:2)
I can tell you why patents are supposed to be a benefit to society. Without patents, the people who profit the most from a novel invention are those who can manufacture and sell it for the most profit, not the person(s) who actually invented it. By granting a patent to
Re:Best quote ever (Score:2)
Corporations are treated legally as humans. I see problems with the definitions in your statement.
Well obviously, this practice would have to stop. Corporations should never have been treated as humans to start with.
Re:Best quote ever (Score:2)
There is no real scientific argument for or against patents - since history and economics are not really sciences, but an observer of the last 100 years cannot help but notice that nations with patent systems have had much more innovation than those without.
This is NOT an argument on my part for unlimited patents and extending patents to
Patents & Open Standards (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the inclusion of patented IP in open standards, it's pretty much an oxymoron: if it's an open standard, there should be no strings attached (e.g., cisco's vrrp, Sun's elliptic curve cryptography in OpenSSL). Open should mean open, not we'll-let-you-play-with-this-until-we-decide-othe
Re:Patents & Open Standards (Score:2)
Neal Koblitz gave a talk about ECC at one of the CCC [wichita.edu] conferences. From here [rhul.ac.uk], we find
Elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) was proposed by Victor Miller and Neal Koblitz in the mid 1980s.
So what does Sun have to do with all this?
Sun and OpenSSL (Score:2, Informative)
From research.sun.com:
"Why the additional "covenant" language in the Sun license?
The OpenSSL's standard BSD style license does not address patent issues explicitly. Sun added a "patent peace provision" language to clarify its patent grant."
This is why OpenBSD ships with an ECC-less OpenSSL.
http://research.sun.com/projects/crypto/Frequen
DHCP is not open? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DHCP is not open? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DHCP is not open? (Score:4, Informative)
The ISC DHCP software also supports dynamic DNS. Nothing special here.
Re:DHCP is not open? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone have a link to the BSA's letter itself?
Re:DHCP is not open? (Score:2)
Re:DHCP is not open? (Score:4, Funny)
I've not found one yet, although that it would clarify what specific issues might be is somewhat remote I think. Either it's not been posted anywhere yet because it's the weekend or this "Open Letter" is "open" in the same sense that Microsoft's shared source is "open". They don't understand the concept of open source code, so why should we expect them to understand the concept of an open letter? ;)
I wondered about that one too (Score:3, Informative)
Lets look at the others:
GSM: Formerly proprietary. Iirc, patents have expired. The GSM codec, for example, is commonly used in asterisk implimentations.
802.1x: IEEE standard. Unclear about patent encumbrances though. Won't take off IMO if too encumbered. Many standards are not really unencumbered and so are not readily employed.
Re:I wondered about that one too (Score:5, Informative)
Move along, there's nothing to see here. The clothes have no emperor.
Open standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Also culture Re:Open standards (Score:2, Insightful)
Just imagine what would have happened if early Europeans used DRM protected media to record their culture? We'd still be in the Dark Ages because nothing would be readable.
Technology makes media and media formats obsolete. Those 8" disks you bought two and a half
Re:Open standards (Score:4, Interesting)
Luckily I can get some text out by viewing the raw file or using tools like 'strings', but I'd much rather have all of the original marked up formatting.
Re:Open standards (Score:3, Insightful)
An all too frequent occurence - happened to a few co-workers when Lotus stopped supporting Manuscript. One of them commented that some of the stuff he wrote in the early 1990's is basically unreadable, but the stuff he did in TeX in the 1980's is maintainable.
One of the smartest things Sun did in regards to StarOffice/OOo was to GPL the core engine (meaning that the files should be readables decades from now) and documenting the file format.
Rather, what's the problem with Open file formats? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the question I haven't seen asked (or answered) anywhere is
This discussion really cannot progress until Microsoft's people can explain EXACTLY what functionality they would lose IF they supported Open file formats (as the default format).
I hear a lot of crying about "patents" and "IP" and "innovation" and "don't give Open Source an unfair advantage", but I haven't heard what the technological problem would be with supporting an Open file format (without any patent restrictions or other IP problems).
Microsoft, are you going to step up and say what the technological problem is?
=============
Yeah, I know what the real problem is and it ain't tech. It's all about control of your data and making it as expensive as possible for you to switch.
Re:Rather, what's the problem with Open file forma (Score:3, Informative)
Open Standards are Best for Economic Growth (Score:4, Insightful)
Another good example is the de facto open standard called the x86 instruction set. When Intel was the sole producer of microprocessors based on this standard, prices tended to be higher than what they could be. However, competition from AMD forced Intel to slash prices and to drastically raise the bar on performance. Hence, if Intel were the sole producer of x86-based microprocessers, your computer would probably still be using the 80386, and the Pentium 4 with EMT64 with be a century down the road while Intel continued to reap monopoly profits.
Open standards are great -- for the consumer!
Re:Open Standards are Best for Economic Growth (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Open Standards are Best for Economic Growth (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway the point is that intel would have been pushed by competition in other markets, because otherwise the PC would die and the world would move on to a superior architecture. Of course, the PC architecture is finally showing some signs of evolution. P
Re:Open Standards are Best for Economic Growth (Score:2)
Re:Open Standards are Best for Economic Growth (Score:2)
Re:Open Standards are Best for Economic Growth (Score:2)
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to when this was? When IBM approached Intel about the 8088, one of the conditions that they imposed was that there should be a second source for any part they were going to buy. This resulted in Intel licensing the design to AMD (a new start-up formed by ex-Intel employees). There have been at least two suppliers for x86 CPUs since before the IBM
Re:Open Standards are Best for Economic Growth (Score:2)
The IEEE standard for microprocessor is the SPARC core.
So, why does the "de facto" win over the real standard?
Marketing, I guess. Not many techies are even AWARE that the there is a processor standard, let alone what it is.
Pity, that.
Ratboy
Closed standards bad (Score:5, Insightful)
An open standard can be freely used by the closed standard company (e.g. Microsoft can use HTML), whereas the closed standard can't be used by the rest of the world. (e.g. the Microsoft patented XML formats need a license to use).
For example, Microsofts XML document format is patented. To use it you need a product that has licensed from them or Microsoft's own product.
So if the EU publishes in that format, then they have set a precondition that the reader has to accept Microsofts terms for use of that document format.
If you choose not to accept those Microsoft terms then you are excluded from reading the EU document.
Their constitution forbids them from being exclusory so by definition they must opt for the open standard.
What exactly is the problem with MS using open standards and competing with the rest of the companies? Why hide behind the BSA?
Let me expand on this (Score:5, Funny)
EU decides that European citizens can sue Software companies for bad software and publishes that law in some proprietary Microsoft format.
Microsoft EULA for the program to read that document says users accept they can only sue MS for a maximum of $10 damages.
By publishing in that proprietary format they have let a company tack on a rider onto that law.
Re:Let me expand on this (Score:2)
Re:Let me expand on this (Score:2)
Look again, the example I gave doesn't contradict the law.
Re:Let me expand on this (Score:2)
Re:Let me expand on this (Score:2)
Re:The charge slip is probably signature enough (Score:2)
Also, if you pay by credit/debit card you enter your 4 digit PIN code at the terminal (every store has had these terminals for more than 10 years now) and hence never sign any "slip".
Re:The charge slip is probably signature enough (Score:2)
Or don't you? Granted, right now I don't think there are too many courts that would consider the PIN to be a Digital Signature, but that could conceivably change.
After all, when you use a debit card, what is it that gives the seller permission to take money from your account? The answer is of course the fact that you entere
Re:The charge slip is probably signature enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, you can always go to your bank and say you didn't do the purcahse recorded.
There is nothing dishonest about it. EULA/click-wraps are not a valid agreement in the EU. Hence you can ignore them. You are not being dishonest, you are just ignoring "information" that is not relevant to you. You never enter into any agreement, as the form is not recognized as a legal form of contract.
I see your l
By accepting this EULA (Score:2)
This is an End User Agreement between yourself and Microsoft America. You agree that the state of Washington has jurisdiction over this agreement....
Don't dismiss EULAs so lightly, the same forces that push EULA in the USA (and have 2 court cases so far in their favour!) are pushing them in Europe too.
Imagine an unfolding situation (Score:3, Interesting)
EU ponders and conjutates for 3-4 years: "Software companies are liable for bad software."
Microsoft lawyers the next day: "Change the EULA to say we are only liable for $10 worth"
EU ponders and conjutates for 3-4 years: "Software companies cannot set limits on the liability"
Microsoft lawyers change the EULA the next day:
"By not returing this product in the first 30 days you are agreeing the product is defect free".
EU ponders and conjutates for 3-4 years...."EULAs are c
Re:Imagine an unfolding situation (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever they write in their EULA, it is not enforcable unless you have signed it with ink on paper.
Re:Imagine an unfolding situation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Imagine an unfolding situation (Score:2)
Please reread the last step again.
Re:Imagine an unfolding situation (Score:2)
It is up to you if you sign a contract or not. But there is no way they can wave some unsigned EULA at you and think it will ever hold.
A way around this is of course to have a friend buy and sign the contract, and then give the software to you as a gift. You are not under contract then and can do whatever. The right to resell/give away the software cannot be contracted away.
Re:Imagine an unfolding situation (Score:2)
But I want to read these new documents from the EU on their new laws!
"A way around this is of course to have a friend buy and sign the contract, and then give the software to you as a gift."
So MS put a clause in the contract....
I think its worth seeing the bigger picture. If you supply a document and it comes in a format that has conditions attached to it (e.g. price, EULA DRM keys whatever). Then that document has those preco
Re:Imagine an unfolding situation (Score:2)
Re:Imagine an unfolding situation (Score:2)
EU ponders and conjutates for 3-4 years...."EULAs are contracts *after* a sale and hence unenforceable".
Microsoft lawyers the next day, "sellers of Microsoft software must get the buyer to sign the EULA before taking the payment".
AFAIK german law already contains rules that amount to "EULAs are contracts *after* a sale and hence unenforceable".
The proposed reaction by Microsoft might legally stick if done correctly. But it would also be quite an increase in work overhead for shops. Not really attractiv
It's very simple (Score:4, Insightful)
The government should do this more often (Score:5, Insightful)
The government should do this more often. By simply rewriting the dictionary so that words now mean the opposite of what they did before, we can solve all the world's problems! War, famine, poverty, disease...
Best of all, since I have patented this method of problem solving, it is now an Open Standard; this means it is free for anyone (who I choose not to sue) to use!
Re:The government should do this more often (Score:2)
Besides for reasons of national security this method must remain under wraps until the liberation of Iran has been completed.
payup, now (Score:2)
As such, it is valid in perpetuity.
Pay up.
hawk
Re:The government should do this more often (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you been living in a cave for the past five years? They've already rewritten "democracy", "freedom", "elections" an "justice"... One more, one less, do you think the mass will notice?
Re:The government should do this more often (Score:2)
3.
"Sometimes used, in a quasi-figurative sense, of violation of copyright; but for this, infringement is the correct and preferable term."
I believe 'piracy' has been used to describe copyright infringement since the late 1700s; however I do agree that the correct term is infringement.
BSA spreads FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
The blurb goes on:
To attain interoperability in the context of pan-European eGovernment services, guidance needs to focus on open standards. The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an open standard:
- The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.).
- The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
- The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis.
This approach was adopted by the parliament in April 2004 (nearly 11 months ago). And only now are BSA making noises?
Seems to me, that as the BSA is a front for software patent pressure [eurolinux.org] that they have released this letter to muddy the waters after the (almost) non-software-patent decision taken by the EU Thursday.
RAND licencing is not procurement neutral! (Score:4, Interesting)
The term "Reasonable" is nebulous, (what is reasonable to you?) and non discriminatory is incorrect as it shuts out all open source software.
This needs to be clearly brought to the attention of EU politicians and media. There are certainly standards the EU cannot control, (DHCP, 802.11, etc.) but they must stick to their guns for standards that they can control. As for the IEEE adopting standards that include restrictive patents, well that is something I am trying to change from within, unless they are willing to open the relevent patent for use in FOSS as IBM has recently done.
If you want to bid on contracts with proprietary software, go ahead - but the file formats and protocols must be kept open in order to avoid vendor lock-in, and allow for interoperability. After all, this Bill Gate's latest big spiel wasn't it?
Re:RAND licencing is not procurement neutral! (Score:2)
Re:RAND licencing is not procurement neutral! (Score:2)
From the FSF's license comment page [gnu.org]:
Re:RAND licencing is not procurement neutral! (Score:2)
Now, if you incorporate such a standard in a Free Software (GPL) program (after paying), then it's free for all GPL programs in the world to use, because the GPL allows them to use
Link between Microsoft and BSA (Score:5, Interesting)
Financially the BSA is by far the most funded by Microsoft (Adobe is a distant far second if I recall correctly).
As Microsoft's biggest 3 competitors are:
1) itself and her older versions (seriously, MS looks at this in that way)
2) piracy, hence their involvement in creating the BSA and funding it
3) Linux (which we will not discuss here
On another note they also use the BSA in Europe to lobby for software patents and to say that MS's XML is an 'open document format enough' (at least in Belgium, out of personal experience).
I guess it must be like that out/in own pocket operation of Mr. Gates with his 'Foundation' helping poor children in the third world by buying MS licenses for them...
Re:Definitions (Score:2, Funny)
BSA: Creates cash cows in Seattle which causes sickness in humans.
See, it rhymes...
favorite banner ad to ever run on /. (Score:5, Funny)
Whatever would we do without the BSA?
Re:favorite banner ad to ever run on /. (Score:2)
Ironic... (Score:3, Funny)
Software patents in EU? (Score:2, Insightful)
So if there are no software patents in EU (and hopefully never will be), what can hinder EU to use standards that are presumambly encumbered with software patents?
what incentive does the EU have to listen to MS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Open response (Score:3, Interesting)
Business Software Alliance isn't the BSA (Score:2)
yeah, a shame. (Score:2)
Yes, it shouldn't. Open source does imply open standards, but who's fault is it that open standards implies open source? It's not just a saying.
The EU is smart to use open standards (Score:2, Insightful)
We in the US unfortunately were lead down the patent path where anything we code could easily violate another's patent. I'm pretty sure that with the thousands of patents being applied for by Microsoft alone in any given year it will be very difficult not to violate some of them.
If you follow open standards you may avoid some problems. I does NOT s
Ah, my esteemed Benoit Mueller ... (Score:2)
Great Mueller!