Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Red Hat Linux Summit Day By Day 59

Posted by Zonk
from the love-those-swanky-chapeaus dept.
Joe Barr writes "NewsForge (also owned by OSTG) has complete coverage of the second annual Red Hat Summit, covering everything from the announcements of Mugshot and 108, Eben Moglen's inspirational and FUD-countering defense of free software and the GPL, to One Laptop Per Child's Nicholas Negroponte asserting that Intel is 'pissing on us.'" From the defense of Free Software: "He spoke primarily about freedom, and the American legacy inherent in free software. He reminded us that there was a day when the word 'yankee' was not automatically preceded by the word 'damn' or followed by the words 'go home.' In fact, he noted, it was once most often followed by the word ingenuity. He also spent a lot of time discussing patents, and explaining why they were added to our legal system so that the world's brightest, most creative people, would move here. Today, however, Moglen says, 'the patent system is an unbridled and unnecessary headache.' He then went on to describe how patents stifle innovation and creativity today. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Hat Linux Summit Day By Day

Comments Filter:
  • Intel (Score:3, Funny)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @04:43PM (#15463455)
    One Laptop Per Child's Nicholas Negroponte asserting that Intel is 'pissing on us.'

    It'll be quicker to list the persons and organisations Intel's not pissing on or it'll take forever.
    • They're pissing on consumers too... They Call it "Intel Viiv".
    • Right now Intel is mainly pissing against the wind or on an electric fence.
  • by packetmon (977047) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @05:03PM (#15463533) Homepage
    the patent system is an unbridled and unnecessary headache. I think the patent system just needs revamping to conform to today's rapid changes. The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions. Without it many corporations with deep pockets could possibly collapse since their intellectual property would be carbon copied dissolving their efforts and work. I'm not one "for big business" on an abusive scale, but I can empathize with them. If I had my own business and paid someone a lot of money for their ideas and creations, I should be entitled to the benefits of them. Without someone to intervene, businesses could collapse, economical and industrial warfare would be off the meter. For someone in the business world to wish away the patenting system is irresponsible. Much to much economical damage could occur from it. When an economy is damaged to an extreme the snowball effect tends to lead to poverty, crime, disease, etc. I don't know where this guy's head was at when he made his comment.
    • I guess he means software patents. And everybody on /. knows they are *EVIL*.

      No, really. They are. I am mathematican and I think it is just plain STUPID to have algorithms patented. So, I cannot think a certain way? Just because someone else did? And (with patents) even though I did it first???

      • When patenting "algorithms", most of the times those algorithms go hand in hand with a program. For example take RSA and PGP...

        Anyone who "makes, uses, offers to sell or sells" a patented invention without the permission of the patent owner can be liable for patent infringement. The boundaries of the patent are defined in the claims portion of the patent. Accordingly, in order to determine whether a particular product, method or process infringes a patent, one must start with the text of the claims themse

        • by suv4x4 (956391)
          in just about all cases, the infringement when it comes down to algorithms and similar patents, comes from the use of the algorithm to mimic an already invented program.

          You should really check the JPEG patent case, the EOLAS patent case, the "algorithm" of e-commerce patent cases, the "three-columns interface" patent of Creative sues Apple case and more and more.

          Half of those have no product involved. The other half has patented ridiculously basic stuff you can't call an algorithm even if you tried real har
        • I see your point. IANAL also, but I think with my own head. Patenting ideas is stupid and always counterproductive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but RSA was invented BEFORE software patents came along. Furthermore, should EVERYTHING be patentable? Sure not, then why software? Software should be protected by copyright and only by copyright like every other piece of written work.

          IMHO there are things that should not be protectable. For inctance, ideas. There is nothing on earth that will change my mind. So, if I

      • So, I cannot think a certain way? Just because someone else did? And (with patents) even though I did it first???

        How does that not describe the world of physical patents? Sure, you eventually have to go to the machine shop and grind some iron into the proper shape for your invention, but the thing being invented is really some great unique thought that somebody had. I don't know how the patents on it played out, but when one of Edison's scientists invented the light bulb the patent on making glass or hook
        • The differnce is EXACTLY that I need to go to a machine shop and create the bloody thing.
          I am for patents where they are needed. Can you give me ONE example of an algorithm that was invented BECAUSE of the patents, not DESPITE?
          Anyway, patents used to be about inventions, not ideas. Patenting ideas is stupid. You know, Edison patented the light bulb, not the idea of electric light? See the difference? By the way, first electric (usable) light was made by the russian inventor Nikolai Tesla. Tesla Coils from R
    • I think the patent system just needs revamping to conform to today's rapid changes. The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions. Without it many corporations with deep pockets could possibly collapse since their intellectual property would be carbon copied dissolving their efforts and work.

      Corporations without products would suffer, but corporations with products would continue to make money as they always have: by selling products.

      I don't think our society is at r

      • Wouldn't you rather be able to build on the ideas and creations of others without paying them money? More realistically, wouldn't you rather be able to make use of your own ideas and creations without someone else stopping you by virtue of having a patent on similar ideas or creations? You're under the impression that I would be opposed to it. No I would not be opposed to someone creating something better, but give credit were credit is due. Whether via mention, joint venture, financially, etc. Again, most
        • most patents are just records that can be used to curtail abuse.

          Cite? It looks like most patents are used to curtail competition. They're made as broad as possible to try to slow down or stop competitors, or to try to extract license fees from actual inventors.

          How *should* patents be used, and what do you propose to move things in that direction?

          I would hope most patent holders would be honored to have their ideas BETTERED instead of just carbon copied.

          It would be nice if that were true, but most pat

    • For someone in the business world to wish away the patenting system is irresponsible. Much to much economical damage could occur from it.

      Surely patents bring no economical damage right now? When you change the status quo, damage occurs, but it heals. You can either change the status quo or slowly die with your problems unsolved.

      Patents sent away will bring less catastrophic results than one could imagine, companies will be a lot more secreteive about their works and release products early and often with les
      • Wanna hear something offpost but sad. For most people that don't know, AZT (what is used to treat AIDS patients) was created by the US government. The dosage portions is patented by the pharm company. So guess what... Now one has to pay the pharm company for dosage information. Sad isn't it. Yes there is abuse, but all in all I would think there would be more abuse without it. I envision corporate warfare where facilities are firebombed, etc. Sabatoge galore. Call it extreme, but its nothing short of what b
        • I envision corporate warfare where facilities are firebombed, etc. Sabatoge galore.

          Bombing facilities would still be illegal, so the police/FBI/CIA would have the tools to fight with that.
          Of course there will be some unpleasantr situations, but at least it won't be SO DAMN EASY to lock up knowledge in a box and extort the entire world for a ransom.

          Once something is known, it can be used. This alone is worth all the negative sites of a patent-free world.
    • by kfg (145172)
      I was sitting around one day, cold, damp and miserable. Then I had a brainstorm - fire is hot! Perhaps if I could find a way of creating a small fire at my own will I could get; and remain, dry and toasty.

      The exhaltation soon passed, however, when I realized I wouldn't benefit from this because anybody else could use my idea as well.

      And that's why we're all sitting here, cold, damp and miserable today when if we only had a patent system you could all be paying me a tribute to be dry and toasty.

      Damn I hate b
    • "Without it many corporations with deep pockets could possibly collapse since their intellectual property would be carbon copied dissolving their efforts and work."

      Complete rubbish. What about copyright? What about simply not publishing the source code?

      "For someone in the business world to wish away the patenting system is irresponsible."

      Unless they live in Europe, of course. Or various other places which aren't the USA.

      "Without someone to intervene, businesses could collapse, economical and industrial warf
    • The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions

      Actually, the patent system does not protect ideas. No intellectual property does. The patent system protects a way of doing something useful and novel as a way of incentivizing creation. The problem is that ways of doing things are being cranked out so fast that their very speed of being cranked out is a prove of non-novelty, yet people are capitalizing them economically as if they were a proof of "infringement", w

    • The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions.

      Close, but there's a critical flaw in that oversimplification. Patents, like copyrights, were designed to strike a balance between the rights of creators and the rights of everybody else. But like any other legal fiction, the concept of "intellectual property" has been distorted far beyond its original intent, in the ways most profitable to those who already profit from it.

      Patent systems were meant to help you prote

  • Redhat? (Score:2, Funny)

    by flogic42 (948616)
    If I was a ninja, I'd throw a dagger that would remove all the bugs in redhat, decapitate bill gates, free Tibet, and make me a sandwich before returning to my hand.
  • by nlago (187984) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @05:20PM (#15463594)
    Free Software, at least for a part of this community, is a matter of principle, ethics, morality, you name it. Unfortunately, such approach to free software is currently not very fashionable.

    Yet, I believe we are headed for some serious turbulence in the not-too-distant future, and the "use the best tool for the job" crowd, the "I use it because it is free (as in beer)" crowd or even the corporations currently making money from free software are not going to be the ones solving the difficult technical/legal problems that are to come for software to be truly free. It will be the idealistic crowd. And that's why we need, more than ever, a lot of evangelization.

    According to TFA, Moglen's speech was the only one not "business"-focused; all the other speakers addressed "the wonders of open-source software", as a means of making money while involving a community (which means "reducing costs"). While there is nothing wrong with that, it is important to realize there are ethical reasons for some people to spend a lot of time on something that is not reverted to them in the form of money.

    When difficulties arise, are these companies to back-up the free software community, investing developer and lawyer time, or are they going to go the short-term solution of reverting to the closed-software business model? While expecting moral decisions on the part of a company is unreal, it may make business sense to stick to free software, specially if there is a strong enough community behind it to actually have an influence on the market.

    Of particular importance, IMHO, is the GPL v3 subject. A lot of ignorance, misinformation, prejudice and even FUD seems to be currently associated with GPL v3. The new GPL is going to be very important, but the community needs to understand it *correctly* ASAP. And I surely hope more *accurate* stuff is written about it, and Moglen is probably the person to do it.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    It's easy to picture the crowd whipped into a frenzy as Moglen screams, "Not only are we going to bring GPL to the masses, Bill Gates, we're going to Redmond and Silicon Valley and San Jose and New Delhi and Denmark, and we're going to farms in the heartland... And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the OS choice! Yeaaaaagggggh!!!"
  • Rrally? When was that? I just bought a used copy of "The Great Conteporary Issues Series, Set I Vol. 7. 1978 edition, which has a newspaper article dated Nov 2, 1924, entitled "U.S. Indicted as the Most Lawless Country", byline Evans Clark.
    • The term "Damn Yankees" dates to at least the American Civil War and was used (obviously) by the southern rebels. It's funny that he decided to, while partnered with a company based in Raleigh, take issue with that particular phrase.
  • I don't think ticket-sales would be any less, &
    we could all partake, OK, as 1-way participants

    Bandwidth cost an issue? So, BitTorrentCast 'em

    Simple
  • Does anyone else find it ironic that dead center on a Red Hat Linux posting there is an advertisement for Microsoft? Somebody should be checking these things better.

No one gets sick on Wednesdays.

Working...