Flawed logic
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| hkwint Mar 30, 2008 4:39 AM EDT |
So people who write free software can use this (those in future) patents for free... Wait a minute - these guys want to use software patents to reach a situation which would have existed without the patent system in force? Oh wait, they see the patent system as the manner to 'disclose inventions'. Huh? How should one disclose an invention implemented in free software of which everyone can look at the source? No, I don't get it. Wouldn't it be better to abort software patents a.k.a. state-granted idea monopolies? Because with the patent system one has to keep their inventions secret until the patent is in place, so one isn't able to disclose their inventions before the patent is granted. That's in contradiction with the 'publish early' goal of open source I guess. No, these open-source guys rather have a monopoly on certain ideas and have that monopoly enforced by the state; after which every open source developer may infringe upon that monopoly but non-open-source-producing companies may not. Yes, a very creative way of using a state-granted monopoly regime, but rather senseless in my opinion. |
| dinotrac Mar 30, 2008 8:07 AM EDT |
Hans -- Better to do without software patents, but, this is actually very much a GPL kind of approach. If you'll recall, Richard Stallman would prefer there to be no copyright on software. Essentially, all software would be public domain in his ideal world. The GPL (with copyleft) employs existing law to provide the freedoms he believes in within the framework of a world that doesn't share his vision. WRT patents, one advantage of taking out a patent that you own is that it protects you from being attacked by somebody else who might take out a patent based on similar claims. Even an invalid patent is painful until it is thrown out because patents are presumed to be valid once granted. As to disclosing invention, no, publishing source code doesn't do that. Somebody might look at the source code and discover something in it was inventive, but that is not the same thing. |
| hkwint Mar 30, 2008 9:21 AM EDT |
Quoting:one advantage of taking out a patent that you own is that it protects you from being attacked by somebody else who might take out a patent As you probably know, most people in (northwestern) Europe don't believe guns protect you against guns - but they believe in the solution to get rid of guns altogether as being the best protection against guns. However, if it's a given guns exist in 'society', I agree guns could be a measure to protect against them. Of course, being a rather 'plain' European I'm glad I don't have to fear guns very much over here. The downside is people use other weapons, which could be the same if you have patents to protect yourself. Quoting:As to disclosing invention, no, publishing source code doesn't do that. Totally agree, you'd have to look at it rather closely and understand it to find out. However, from time to time I try reading a patent. For me (and I guess for programmers) it is as difficult to distillate an invention from a softwarepatent as it is for a lawyer to distillate it from a c sourcecode file. Another example of non-human-readable stuff: Even the articles in Nature are hard to understand for 'normal' persons. SciAm, however, I can understand because it explains it in human language. It's sad that patents doesn't have a 'human language' section. However, I do believe in copyright on creative works which are 'written', like stories, poetry, music and software. I had plenty ideas for story-lines, music pieces which come to my head out of nowhere when cycling to the supermarket - and ideas about programs I'd like to write, that's not the hard part - the part which should be protected against 'theft'. Implementation of those ideas, like the stuff covered by copyright, is most of the times the hard part. Looking at some of the latest Apple-patents I get the idea they patented the kind of things a lot of ordinary (non-inventor) people think about when having a drink. Darnit, it has become my such-and-such rant against software patents (nothing new indeed) and I was trying to focus at the topic; the initiative of L. Rosen. Yes, I do like the GPL approach, though it's mainly a 'reinvention' / borrowed idea of the OIN*, but the choice of instruments is odd. Also, they just could have donated their patent to OIN to reach the same I assume; in which case they could have focused on the software and patent and not the infra around it. Hmm, that would be a good question to ask I guess. * http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/ |
| vainrveenr Mar 30, 2008 10:19 AM EDT |
Quoting:So people who write free software can use this (those in future) patents for free... Popowich actually addresses this in the video during one of his exuberant gesticulations over the so-called "novel open source business model" --- following Miller's MS-swiping question 'Can Blackmail be Patented?' ~6 minutes into the video.. Popowich describes the business model as a "bridge" between Microsoft's proprietary software and F/OSS (technically, OSS without the FSF's "Free"). Of course, "bridge" and the conceptually-related term "Interoperability" continue to be discussed elsewhere here on LXer and on other online forums. Perhaps this "novel open source business model" is not entirely so novell. Rosen's own license is called the Open Software License ("OSL") and further details of this may be found at OSI's 'Open Source Initiative OSI - The Open Software License 3.0:Licensing', http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-3.0.php . One would do well to be aware of a subtlety in the name of Rosen's license: The Open _SOFTWARE_ License as opposed to an Open _SOURCE_ License...... these two names have the identical O.S.L. acronym. Quoting:Better to do without software patents, but, this is actually very much a GPL kind of approach. "Sigh ..... Where oh where do I begin....? ...... Ummmm, not really. ..... You just don't get it , do you.? " (tm?) In a noted comparison of Rosen's OSL with the GPL Quoting:The OSL is intended to be similar to the LGPL [5]. Note that the definition of Derivative Works in the OSL does not cover linking to OSL software/libraries so software that merely links to OSL software is not subject to the OSL license.(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_License) Cross-reference[5] is Rosen's own pdf piece 'Comparison-OSL+AFL3.0' downloadable via [url=http://www.rosenlaw.com/Comparison-OSL AFL3.0.pdf]http://www.rosenlaw.com/Comparison-OSL AFL3.0.pdf[/url] Cross-reference[6] is GNU.org's 'Philosophy of the GNU Project', http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ Cross-reference[7] is Ian Lance Taylor's 'Choosing an Open Source License', http://www.airs.com/ian/essays/licensing/licensing.html Besides mention of the lack of widespread use of the Open SOFTWARE License, Taylor in cross-reference[7] also raises in the section 'Do You Want to Permit Proprietary Forks?' the worrisome possibility of companies continuing to attempt to interject patented (or _currently_ not) proprietary-code within various Open SOURCE licenses. ... and yes, proprietary forks are _currently_ prohibited by the GPL, MPL, and OSL licenses. This issue of permitting proprietary forks in OSS continues to be discussed elsewhere here on LXer and on other online forums, and such discussion occurs regardless of certain possibly misleading statements to the effect that such proprietary forks are already entirely and popularly fait accompli, i.e., "done deals" Quoting:If you'll recall, Richard Stallman would prefer there to be no copyright on software..... and an excellent "recollection" of this is Stallman's verbatim words regarding copyright taken directly from the OSI's nicely-sourced 'GNU General Public License (GPL)' and 'GNU General Public License version 3 (GPLv3)' webpages found at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.php and http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html respectively: Quoting:Preamble Note again the distinction FSF-Stallman wishes to drill into ones' heads that both _software_ and its underlying _sourcecode_ must ALWAYS remain COMPLETELY Open and Free(as in speech here). |
| dinotrac Mar 30, 2008 11:32 AM EDT |
vainrveenr - After you learn to read with comprehension, perhaps you will merit a response. |
| jdixon Mar 30, 2008 4:16 PM EDT |
> ...but they believe in the solution to get rid of guns altogether as being the best protection against guns. If it would work, they would have a point. Guns are too easy to make and too easy to transport. Getting rid of them altogether is not going to happen. |
| flufferbeer Mar 30, 2008 10:45 PM EDT |
@vv
You sure have in hand a response from me.
Good use of references as supporting evidence, and the points from these are right on the spot.
Thank you!
@hkwint, did the points and sources vv raised help you at all to clear up the confusion of the new business model's flawed logic?
I'd be interested in finding out along with someone else who wants to know some of the background issues, in order to make some trial choices of OSI's single or blended licenses. |
| vainrveenr Apr 02, 2008 12:00 PM EDT |
On the similar vein of Open Source licenses,
in an interesting and relevant twist, Google Inc. is coming under scrutiny for the network-centric license it ITSELF uses, e.g., Gunderloy's 'Is Google Oppressing the AGPL?' at http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/101314/index.html
Just as for Rosen's Open Software License, "The AGPL isn't yet a terribly widespread license" as directly quoted from Gunderloy's piece. A caveat here: Quoting:Note that GNU Affero General Public License is not the same legal document as the Affero General Public License, though they are quite similar in intent and effect.(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License) Details of the AGPL can be found at affero.org's http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html Details of the _GNU_ AGPL version can be found at gnu.org's http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html The above-referenced opensource.org lists solely this _GNU_ AGPL in its http://www.opensource.org/licenses, not that there is a critically important difference between the _GNU_ and the _non-GNU_ AGPL versions. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 02, 2008 1:04 PM EDT |
vainrveenr: The AGPL is to the GNU AGPL as GPL2 is to GPL3. It's the new version recommended by both GNU and Affero. Unless you have moral objections to the new things added to GPL3 or existing licenses prevent it, you should probably go with the GNU AGPL. |
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!