Prevent Robber
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Abe Aug 05, 2005 3:26 PM EDT |
"The technology of the NX/X Protocol Compression is documented for public and peer-to-peer review on the NoMachine Web site. It is not patent-encumbered. It is free software. It is GPL. So, open-source developers, go use it!" I applaud this guy but, shouldn't such an important and valuable technology some how be protected? Monopolies could duplicate it and charge an arm and leg for it without costing them a penny. There must be a way to get it patented but made available for free only for FOSS GPL software. Monopolies has to pay and pay dearly. |
| Tsela Aug 06, 2005 10:44 AM EDT |
Eh... I get the idea you don't understand the GPL or copyright protection at all. Maybe some monopoly could duplicate the technology without using the original code, but it would probably be very costly, and I doubt they would get many clients since the GPL implementation already exists (why take an expensive product when you can get an exact equivalent for much cheaper, if not free, and with the freedom to adapt it to your own use?). They could also take the original technology and try the well-known "embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy. Well, it might work with public domain or BSD-licensed technologies, but the GPL ensures that it cannot work in this case, as any extension, if distributed, *has* to be released under the GPL (nothing prevents them from making it so expensive that the original programmers cannot pay for the product and thus cannot see the source of the extensions, but then they just have to ask one of the clients who actually bought it to distribute it to them - thanks to the GPL, the monopoly has no way to prevent that -, and they will *always* find someone ready to do this, since the GPL ensures that the original company cannot complain about it). If they don't release it under the GPL or a compatible license, then they are guilty of copyright infringement, something which is actually quite easy, and cheap, to prove, compared to things like patent infringement (and don't believe the FUD that the GPL is untested in court. If it has hardly ever come to court, it's only because all the infringement cases ended up with the infringing party settling *before* going to court. If that's not effective protection I don't know what is). And in any case, once again why would people want to pay a lot for a technology that they can get for free or nearly free? The last thing the monopoly could try to do is get a patent on the technology. But thanks to the GPL by the time they did it so much prior art will be distributed everywhere that even if the patent is granted (anything is possible when you have such a broken patent system as in the USA), it would be unenforceable. But that is still a valid threat (which taking a patent already on the technology would *not* prevent, as the validity of patents seems nowadays not to be on what is in the patent but on how many lawyers you can afford to fight for it), which is one of the reasons why software patents in general are a bad idea. In other words, the GPL is more than enough protection to prevent monopolies to take the idea and lock it away (if it wasn't so, we wouldn't have GNU/Linux nowadays). Don't cave in for the FUD that software patents are necessary. They are not. And anyway, how do you know the inventors even have the money to apply for a patent? Nowadays applying for a patent costs in average $20,000, and this price is growing by the day. |
| alc Aug 06, 2005 1:03 PM EDT |
It's all @ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html |
| dinotrac Aug 06, 2005 1:58 PM EDT |
Beyond that - The ability to lock away open technology is overblown, sold by the robotic drones who parrot the GPL party line. You cannot take away public domain technology. You cannot take away BSD-licensed technology. Once given to the public domain, things stay there (albeit one wretched exception exists: some copyrighted material that expired while Congress was re-writing the copyright laws to extend terms. The new law was made retroactive to works that expired while they were working on the new law. Blecch. About the only justification I can give for that -- and it ain't much of one -- is that the owners didn't explicitly donate the work to the public domain. Of course, that is part of the trade-off with copyright, so...) What you can do is to use it and extend it, which is exactly the same thing you can do with GPL'd technology. The only difference with the GPL is that you're obligated to make the source code available if you distribute it to others. The false premise that the FSF-bots sell you is that Microsoft is so powerful that everybody will jump to whichever technology they support and leave everything else behind. Thus, if they take an existing technology and change it a bit, the old version will cease to be used. That logic, however, is more than false -- it is addled and brain-dead. Here's why: 1. It presumes everybody uses whatever technology the perpetrator is pushing. If that were the case, competing technologies simply wouldn't exist, or, if they did, wouldn't matter -- there'd be nobody to use them. On the other side, it presumes that the perpertrator's technology is so compelling that anything else must always wither and die on the vine. After all, didn't .Net immediately wipe out php, perl, python, java, etc? And poor old Apache...how could anybody hope to compete with IIS. And there's that kid with his cute little FIrefox browser. Too bad he never had a chance. Like the MySQL folks who thought they could muscle in on Microsoft's rightful turf. All that stuff is rightfully relegated to the trash heap, along with the GImp, Linux, FreeBSD, X.org, postgresql, sendmail, KDE, Gnome, and however many other open-source/free projects are out there. After all, nobody's using them, right? 2. It presumes that people who aren't using whatever technology the perpetrator is pushing would suddenly see the light and jump to the perpetrator's technology. C'mon now. People who live happily without the perpetrator will continue to live happily without the perpetrator. 3. It presumes that the perpetrator can get away without playing nice. That might have seemed true at one time, when business didn't understand the power of FOSS, but too many enterprises get the picture now. Not playing nice means lost business. Now, if the perpetrator doesn't mind losing business, that's ok. Their lost business means opportunity for everyone else. In short, the Chicken Little stories are fairy tales. |
| Abe Aug 06, 2005 2:20 PM EDT |
Thank you for the lecture, but I still don't see your point. Actually you don't have a point. "Maybe some monopoly could duplicate the technology without using the original code, but it would probably be very costly," How costly? Monopolies investment their money to make more money, NX technology is very innovative and is a major breakthrough. MS spends billions on buying companies to either eliminate them as competitors or use their technologies to enhance MS products. Why wouldn't MS take the NX ideas to enhance their Terminal Services? Ideas are not protected by the GPL, code is. Ideas are protected by patents not copyrights. MS has tons of money to throw many programmers on a project or hire new ones. When they see themselves behind in one area, they use all they got to make sure they are not. They tried buying Citrix didn't they? NX is much better than Citrix and the ideas are in front of them. Tell me how NX technology is going to be protected. Let us not be naive about it. |
| Abe Aug 06, 2005 3:08 PM EDT |
Dinotrac: My whole point is, MS can use NX technology to improve and enhance their products without violating the GPL. All they have to do is take the idea and write their own code. They can do that can't they? Your points are well taken. Eventually FOSS will dominate because MS is getting to the point where they are being forced to compete. They don't like that, they can't, and they don't want to, but they have to. Since MS currently has the majority of the market, it hasn't been easy to take a sizable market share form them. We can see that from the slow proliferation of FOSS. Enterprises ought to be jumping on FOSS, but so far it has been a very cautious and slow process. Many IT organization that use MS products are taking the easy way saying, "if MS has it, why should we move to FOSS", overlooking many of the advantages that FOSS offers. Again, my point is, we need to prevent MS from using FOSS technology at all. We should be using the same weapon they use against FOSS, Patents that is, we should patent innovative ideas and make it available only to FOSS projects for F/free (as in beer and Freedom), but not monopolies. |
| tuxchick Aug 06, 2005 4:57 PM EDT |
Abe, are you serious? are you even reading the other posts, or the GPL link at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html? No one can lock away GPL code. Because it's available to anyone who wants it. MS is perfectly free to use the GPL NX code, just like anyone else. Any improvements that they make to it must be released back into the community; that's the genius of the GPL. Putting up barriers to "monopolies" is unworkable and doesn't make sense in any case. Let 'em contribute something for once, instead of just taking. Trying to protect ideas is equally futile. (BTW you cannot patent an idea.) Ideas are a dime a million- anyone can have ideas. Implementing them is the hard part. Here's an idea: we should have Star Trek-type computers that we can converse with and give verbal orders to. Here's another: we should have portable anti-grav boosters to replace cars. Should I try to protect these ideas and not let anyone else use them? |
| Abe Aug 06, 2005 5:34 PM EDT |
TuxChick: First of all, yes I am serious. Call me ignorant about the GPL, but my understanding is the GPL protects nothing but copyrighted material, nothing else. The GPL grants you the permission to use, copy, redistribute copyrighted code under one condition, that you have to distribute your contributions in addition to the original code under the GPL. Am I correct so far? OKay! Well, I am not talking about the code, I used the wrong word idea previously, what I meant is the method/process/mechanism. Aren't these eligible to be patented? I think they are. In this case, if MS implements the same NX method/mechanism, the GPL doesn't apply and MS can do that without having to worry, can't they? "Putting up barriers to "monopolies" is unworkable and doesn't make sense in any case" Why is it unworkable? Many companies do that, why not FOSS? MS is releasing their Office 12 file format royalty free but under patents and conditions to prevent FOSS from using or even accessing those formats, why can't FOSS do the same? I strongly believe in not giving MS any chance to steal FOSS technologies. They should be given a dose of their own medicine. May be they could learn a good lesson for once. It is only fair. |
| dinotrac Aug 06, 2005 6:38 PM EDT |
Abe, Abe, Abe: You've got a fundamental problem with your thinking: Quoting:Again, my point is, we need to prevent MS from using FOSS technology at all. This tells me that you don't understand what FOSS is or why it exists. You see, the nature of free and open software is that it seeks to be free and open. Part of that is letting people use the code as they need it. Some people give more rights than others (BSD type licenses, for example) while others demand more in return (the GPL), but the basic idea is the same: software you can use instead of software that lets you be abused. The authors of FOSS determine the extend of the gift and the extent of the responsibilities asked in return. That is their right. So tell me, how do you propose overriding the will of the authors and placing additional restrictions on their gifts? How do you do that with out turning FOSS into Not so FOSS? You need to get comfortable with the nature of freedom. One of the key elements of freedom is that people you don't like can do things you don't like so long as they follow the rules. Personally, I wouldn't want it any other way. |
| sbergman27 Aug 06, 2005 10:47 PM EDT |
The day Microsoft starts using GPL code is the day we can say we won the war. Microsoft has as much right to GPL code as anyone else. I would be pleased to see them use it, as long as they follow the rules. The one point that I can't dismiss entirely is the patent issue. MS (or some other entity) very well could get a patent on the technology if no one else has. (Which is not to say that it should be granted, but it very well could be the way things are working today.) And while I agree with Tsela that in the end it would not be enforceable... well, like a small business owner friend of mine used to say, it doesn't matter if you win or lose in court, if you have to go to court, you've lost. Imagine yourself as a starving college student writing great and wonderful GPL'd code based on NX. And then one say you get a very, very legal looking letter from the legal department of a company with a hell of a lot more money and legal savvy than you (or that of your home state for that matter), which says you are violating their patents, copies attached for your reference. I can see a certain chilling effect there. If you went to court, you should win since you are in the right... right? Which is not to say that I think that kind of thing is going to happen in this case. But I can't refute the possibility, and after all, that is the halmark of any good conspiracy theory. :-) -Steve |
| Abe Aug 07, 2005 9:02 AM EDT |
Oh Dino:
I think the smog in Chicago is clouding your thinking. I myself live out in the country (boonies of Michigan) where we have fresh air all the time. Let us just say your understanding of Freedom is a little different than mine. Shall we! Freedom is not unlimited, it can't be. Ones freedom stops when it starts infringing on the freedom of others. That is why we have laws and agreements. I wont like it when someone tries to deprive others from freedom any more or less than depriving me. If depriving others today, tomorrow it will be me. I wouldn't empower a monopoly to take the freedom away from others, would you? Allowing MS, which has history of breaking the business ethics, is against my belief. Allowing MS to use Free technology helps them in accomplishing their goals. That is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed. Do you see my point now? Well, how do we protect FOSS technology? I am not a fan of patents, they are against my religion (I am serious here). But, they are the only means available to us today. They use it against us, unless we find different means, patents are it. With patents, we can have special agreements or arrangements that would server special objectives. The GPL uses copyright laws to protect code, adding one more condition will protect methods. All is needed is to add one more condition to the GPL, which states, any code that uses GPL'ed patent has to be released as GPL also, end of story. |
| sbergman27 Aug 07, 2005 12:49 PM EDT |
> Allowing MS, which has history of breaking the business ethics, is against my belief. Allowing MS to use Free technology helps them in accomplishing their goals. That is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed. Do you see my point now? There is a difference between being Anti-Microsoft and being Pro-OSS. Sometimes the line gets a bit blurry, but it is still there. Freedom is not real freedom unless it applies to everyone in a consistent fashion. And that applies to Microsoft, Apple, and that guy down the street that you suspect might belong to some terrorist organization. Freedom that picks and chooses between people isn't the genuine article. And besides, if Microsoft started building NX technology into Windows, making it super-easy to connect to X clients on a remote server over a WAN, I'd be delighted. Well, after I came out of shock I'd be delighted. I don't think there is that much to worry about in this case, my earlier speculations about flagrant patent abuse notwithstanding. NX is a great technology. It's a bit more involved to set up than VNC, but runs circles around it on performance and features. It's also nice to see people talking about the *real* reason that X is slow over broadband. It always used to annoy me when people would say things like: "X doesn't do well over low bandwidth connections". If I had a nickel for every time someone.... well, never mind. Actually, X does surprisingly well over low bandwidth connections. But native X is such a "chatty" protocol, and is totally serial (no sliding windows) so latency just destroys it. X actually performs remarkably well over a 33.6k modem connection, provided the modem on the other end is attached directly to the server. But it tends to be abysmally slow over T1's across the internet. I'm more than pleased that NoMachine has fixed the problem and am looking forward to the time when distros integrate it better, so that it is not such a frecking pain to get working on Distro X. |
| dinotrac Aug 07, 2005 1:31 PM EDT |
Abe -- Whether patents (who owns -- and PAYS FOR -- the patent?) or copyright, the question is whether software is or is not FOSS. For example: If you decide to patent a software method (much, much more expensive and time-consuming process than acquiring a copyright, which is virtually automatic and requires no paperwork of any kind), how do you license that method so that everybody except the bad guys can use it? Do you literally say that "everybody but Microsoft can use this software as they please?". Would that mean that people who provide tools TO Microsoft would have to forego sales to Microsoft? How about people who provide services to Microsoft, and those services require use of this software? What about people other than Microsoft whom you don't like? At some point, free is either the real thing or a masquerade. I prefer the real thing. |
| tuxchick Aug 07, 2005 1:56 PM EDT |
dino, but don't patents give you the power to do restrict who may use your stuff? since anyone who wishes to use your patented technology must have your permission to use it? |
| dinotrac Aug 07, 2005 2:09 PM EDT |
Yes. So do copyrights. Software licenses rely on the power of copyright law, not patents. What patents give you is the ability to prevent somebody from writing original, non-copied, software that uses your patented technology. They are an extra weapon -- and an expensive one to combat. That is the real problem with patents. Since the PTO has ostensibly (though, it turns out, not really) carefully investigated the patent application to ensure the validity of any patent that is granted, fighting a patent has to overcome the presumption of the patent's validity. Tough stuff. The real problem is not the mechanism of protection, it's how much and in what ways you can protect something without taking the FO out of FOSS. |
| Abe Aug 07, 2005 4:01 PM EDT |
Dino: It should be as simple as the GPL. - Yes patents are expensive, but the value of the method/software and the owner will determine whether it is worth it or not. "Do you literally say that "everybody but Microsoft can use this software as they please?". - No, anybody can use it but, Just like GPLed code is protected by the condition to GPL the code that uses it, code that uses Free patented methods should also be GPLed. "What about people other than Microsoft whom you don't like?" - Whoever uses the software should abide by the above mentioned condition. Otherwise, don't use it. GPLed software is automatically compliant with this condition "At some point, free is either the real thing or a masquerade. I prefer the real thing." - The condition above is exactly the same as in the GPL. If you don't have a problem with the GPL, then you shouldn't have a problem with the above concept. |
| dinotrac Aug 07, 2005 5:58 PM EDT |
Abe -- I have no problem with the GPL, but the GPL is just as friendly to Microsoft as it is to everybody else -- as it should be. It sounded to me like you were looking for some special way to deny Microsoft the right to use FOSS. |
| hkwint Aug 09, 2005 1:14 PM EDT |
This thread is heading in the wrong direction in my opinion. This thread shouldn't be about GPL in first place, if you're afraid of MS stealing and patenting this technology. All reactions before this one are from a US point of view, I believe. But let's not forget Mr Pfeifle and Mr Pinzari don't live there. They live on a continent where software-patents aren't believed to be enforcable at the moment (should be carefull, things might change). That means, MS can't patent this 'idea' in Europe. Also, I believe it shouldn't be possible to enforce a patent in the US 'by big companies', since prior art exists. However, and that's the flaw in both the patent system in the EU and US (for other countries I don't know): First you apply for a patent. Then, the patents gets granted by USPTO (US) or EPO (EU). Then, if you want to enforce it, you go to the court. Then the judge should look if there isn't prior art, and if that exists, the patent shouldn't be enforcable, so it should be useless. Also, there could be other errors in the patents. So, many people, like myself in the past, were asking themselves: why don't the USPTO and EPO people look for prior art? Why don't they only grant patents if the quality of them is good (most software patens are far too broad)? This might seem like a stupid thing, but actual, there's a reason for this behaviour. First, there aren't enough competent people at the USPTO. Second, if there were, and the USPTO would do their job and scan for prior art and evaluate the quality of the software, getting a patent granted would be much and much more expensive, in fact, it would be so expensive, only big companies like MS could apply for a patent. And moreover, often there is a misconception about copyright. Most people believe copyright only protects from 'litteraly copying', but that's not true in most countries (don't know for the US, you should look it up somewhere if you care). For example, this is a part of German copyright law: (Infringement on copyright is also) the adaption, the arrangement and other reworking of a computer program. basically every modification of a computer programm [...] Under Ƕ9c No 2 come for example error corrections, modifications for adjustment to custom user needs, a new user interface or to new legal, organisatoric or technic demands, program improvements, the transfer of the source program in another programming language, the compilation of the source program into the object program and reverse. So, the steps Abe mentions MS has to take to 'patent' the NX technology is in most countries infringing of copyright. I believe ideas shouldn't be patentable. Look at the doubleclicking, tabbed browsing, chopping chart, ideas of compressing files - like the mp3 and videoformats - the Ipv6 protocol, the idea of selling digital music files and then exchanging music files over the internet (all of these are patented or aplied for), and you see these patents work out bad. For example, if only one company may use the idea of compressed audiofiles, but they are not able to use the idea of "exchanging the files over internet in return for money" or Ipv6 because another company holds that patents, an innovation like an online music shop wouldn't have been possible. But the company who patented compressed music files isn't able to 'deal them over internet'. As you see, patents stiffle innovation. Even Bill Gates said so in 1991 ( first sentence on http://www.msversus.org/node/81 ), and also important people from Novell, Cisco and Adobe have been quoted in the early 90's saying copyright is a much better way of protecting IP than patents. http://swpat.ffii.de/vreji/quotes/index.en.html#ftc020228-ci... So if you're afraid that MS will patent this technology, don't blame GPL. Blame the USPTO and your patent system. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the GPL, and it shouldn't be changed because the patent-system in some particular country sucks like it does in the US. Change the patent system, not the GPL. Start some action, write letters to the USPTO that most of their patents have prior art and most of their patents are useless. Mobilize the ICT-SMB's, they're the victims of software patents. Get the smb's organized. (Please look at http://www.economic-majority.org to see what I mean) The SMB's are the only one to overturn the weight of the big software companies. Take the quotes from the people from Cisco, Adobe and Novell and mail them to local politicians if you can. Start some petitions and send them to your local politicians. And of course, spread the word to other people. That's the only way to change things in a right manner, not by changing the GPL. |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2005 2:23 PM EDT |
hkwint - Patent examiners do look for prior art, but software is a funny case. The first place to look for prior art is the USPTO archives themselves, as they are a vast repository of prior art. Computer software, however, was not patentable at all for many years, including the most explosive period of software growth and innovation. Consequently, none of that stuff is in the USPTO archives. It's almost like it doesn't exist. Another problem is that, in other arenas, it is legitimate to earn a patent by applying a technology to new areas, even if you didn't develop the technology. Software, however, is all about applying computer technology to areas, so the simple application of computer technology to do somethign new SHOULDN'T be patentable, but, it seems, is. |
| Abe Aug 09, 2005 4:11 PM EDT |
The reason I started this thread is to bring out, I think, a weakness that FOSS/GPL has. Many others did bring the same issue before too. MS, and others, have been patenting like crazy lately and FOSS has no way to stand up to this challenge. When IBM granted FOSS 500 patents, everyone was ecstatic. I like the German Copyright laws for protecting methods along with code. But what else does it have? I hope it doesn't have any hidden traps. Dino: I am sorry I didn't explain myself well enough at the beginning. I am not against MS or any other company. I am against some of their practices. Like myself, I am sure many despise MS for what they did and continue to do to many of the IT technologies. I don't want them to do the same to NX like they did to VMS, Kerberos, BSD TCP and the list is long. Yes, I known, they didn't do anything illegal, but never the less, I don't like it and I don't want to see MS continue to have the chance. hkwint: In Gemany, the GPL covers both code and method, but what about the US? My suggestion is to try to amend the GPL. Since it is controlled by the community, it would be much easier than to change the USP laws. My reason? I think everyone is aware who we have to fight against to change Patent laws. |
| Abe Aug 10, 2005 9:09 AM EDT |
See this new link about Open Source Patents, I had NO knowledge of this. It was pure coincidence when I was talking about it in this thread!!! http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2005/tc200... |
| tuxtom Aug 12, 2005 12:36 AM EDT |
...and it is impossible for citizens of the United States of America to lose their consitutional rights. You think documentation will save your ideals???? Think again. 1984 is here. Linux will be ILLEGAL in the next decade. You scoff? You are in denial. Sad, but true. (I cry as I print the truth) I would say "WAKE UP", but it is already too late. |
| Abe Aug 12, 2005 5:39 AM EDT |
tuxtom: People revolted before, they will revolt again. When the pressure cooker exceeds its limit, the lid will give way. So far, the relief valve has been doing its job, we will see if it gets to the point where it wont be enough. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!