- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
We Hang Together or Separately on Patents
|
|
|
Comments (27)
7 earlier comments in the full thread.
I agree and I see the same things in RMS.
I think RMS started something (actually he wasn't the first except for software) and he is afraid to lose it or let go. It could be just because he is afraid for it or just can't deal with dwindling popularity. In either case, nothing lasts forever and the concern should be mainly for Software Freedom.
Jim's lack of understanding is what is annoying because he totally brushed the idea and went knocking FSF & RMS. I never said it has to be FSF who should be the one and the idea was to discuss as a solution not to branch into other derogatory issues.
I think RMS started something (actually he wasn't the first except for software) and he is afraid to lose it or let go. It could be just because he is afraid for it or just can't deal with dwindling popularity. In either case, nothing lasts forever and the concern should be mainly for Software Freedom.
Jim's lack of understanding is what is annoying because he totally brushed the idea and went knocking FSF & RMS. I never said it has to be FSF who should be the one and the idea was to discuss as a solution not to branch into other derogatory issues.
Jim,
The bottom line is that FOSS needs a responsible and empowered organization to take care of issues that constantly will come up. Currently such an organization doesn't exists but any of the ones that do could be re-structured to be so. Without such an organization, FOSS will have very hard time to flourish let alone survive. Joining FSF & OSDL by the hips might be a good approach. We just can't ignore their contributions and having more arbitrators added to them might be a good help.
The bottom line is that FOSS needs a responsible and empowered organization to take care of issues that constantly will come up. Currently such an organization doesn't exists but any of the ones that do could be re-structured to be so. Without such an organization, FOSS will have very hard time to flourish let alone survive. Joining FSF & OSDL by the hips might be a good approach. We just can't ignore their contributions and having more arbitrators added to them might be a good help.
> Jim's lack of understanding is what is annoying because he totally brushed the idea and went knocking FSF & RMS. I never said it has to be FSF who should be the one and the idea was to discuss as a solution not to branch into other derogatory issues.
Oh I understand perfectly Abe, and you 'were' the one who suggested that FSF would/should handle it all( "FSF will become the company that furnishes some sort of indemnification."). Memory failing?
> the concern should be mainly for Software Freedom.
Well, at least we agree on that one.
Oh I understand perfectly Abe, and you 'were' the one who suggested that FSF would/should handle it all( "FSF will become the company that furnishes some sort of indemnification."). Memory failing?
> the concern should be mainly for Software Freedom.
Well, at least we agree on that one.
> The bottom line is that FOSS needs a responsible and empowered organization to take care of issues that constantly will come up. Currently such an organization doesn't exists but any of the ones that do could be re-structured to be so.
That's all I was saying Abe.... I was not just 'brushing your idea off'. I just think that for a number of reasons, FSF is not the answer to that. Maybe we need something totally different to handle the problem?
That's all I was saying Abe.... I was not just 'brushing your idea off'. I just think that for a number of reasons, FSF is not the answer to that. Maybe we need something totally different to handle the problem?
Helios --
I see that I haven't given you enough credit. The Forbes article well reflects the view many in business have of RMS.
Sadly, the view doesn't seem off base in any fundamental way.
RMS has done good and important things, but there is one thread in that article -- and in discussions we have batted about in this forum -- that should bring frownie faces all around.
By stubborn intransigence and personal inability to accept a good thing, RMS may do more to help Microsoft than the BSA and an army of lawyers.
I see that I haven't given you enough credit. The Forbes article well reflects the view many in business have of RMS.
Sadly, the view doesn't seem off base in any fundamental way.
RMS has done good and important things, but there is one thread in that article -- and in discussions we have batted about in this forum -- that should bring frownie faces all around.
By stubborn intransigence and personal inability to accept a good thing, RMS may do more to help Microsoft than the BSA and an army of lawyers.
Jim,
I know what I said and thankfully the memory is not failing yet. Since currently there is no other organization defending FOSS, legally or otherwise, there was no other choice but FSF. If you notice in my other posts, I did not re-affirm or insist on FSF and suggested OSDL.
Dino:
RMS is a purist like others before him. Yes he could be harmful but he no longer controls FOSS to dictate his ideology. Critics use him for there own gain. Moglen is a little different, he is seeking opinions, feedback and suggestion for GPL3, he is not mandating it by himself. The terms he added to counter MS-Novell's contract seems to be reasonable. I think they will be widely accepted since they extended what is in GPL2 for code to include patents. In terms of the DRM clause, that is a different story in my opinion.
To reach a good decision, it is best to ask the hawks and doves which are the ends of the spectrum and eventually take a consensus.
If RMS is controlling FSF, more members should join if they feel there is a need. I don't know about its detail, but I think it is open for others, isn't it?
I know what I said and thankfully the memory is not failing yet. Since currently there is no other organization defending FOSS, legally or otherwise, there was no other choice but FSF. If you notice in my other posts, I did not re-affirm or insist on FSF and suggested OSDL.
Dino:
RMS is a purist like others before him. Yes he could be harmful but he no longer controls FOSS to dictate his ideology. Critics use him for there own gain. Moglen is a little different, he is seeking opinions, feedback and suggestion for GPL3, he is not mandating it by himself. The terms he added to counter MS-Novell's contract seems to be reasonable. I think they will be widely accepted since they extended what is in GPL2 for code to include patents. In terms of the DRM clause, that is a different story in my opinion.
To reach a good decision, it is best to ask the hawks and doves which are the ends of the spectrum and eventually take a consensus.
If RMS is controlling FSF, more members should join if they feel there is a need. I don't know about its detail, but I think it is open for others, isn't it?
"Joining FSF & OSDL by the hips might be a good approach."
Cats and dogs tend not to live well together.
"Since currently there is no other organization defending FOSS, legally or otherwise, there was no other choice but FSF."
It's not the FSF's job to defend your copyrights. That's your job. They wouldn't even have standing to do so, as they've mentioned before. They're the copyright owner of the GNU system, so they can act to defend those parts, and parts where you've assigned them copyright.
"Yes he could be harmful but he no longer controls FOSS to dictate his ideology."
You realize he's the one that flies to places like India and gets governments on board with the Free Software ideology, right? And that it's his ideological strength that keeps us from getting massively burned by bad ideas like Open Source (ESR), Microsoft patent agreements (Miguel), non-upgradeable licenses and without a collective copyright owner to be able to relicense (Linus), non-free Java (Towns), etc.?
Saying 'he could be harmful' to the person who has done the most to reduce harm and dedicated his life to that is like a black guy saying 'he could be harmful' in reference to MLK. I mean good lord, the guy just coordinated on the relicense of Java as Free Software instead of its previous dead-end Open Source license, likely the most significant event in the history of Free Software! Did that harm you? Why is Microsoft so afraid as to be /personally/ attacking him and spreading FUD? That should be a hint.
Other 'luminaries' often fail us. Does he?
"The rest of the community needs to actively participate in the FSF"
I agree. Register as a FSF Associate Member[1] and set up a monthly donation. Then when you see Stallman fly to a country and they do an about-face and support Free Software, or you see a Java coming from Sun with the FSF's Classpath exception, you can proudly say, "I funded part of that". It's something anyone do to help out.
[1] https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom?
Cats and dogs tend not to live well together.
"Since currently there is no other organization defending FOSS, legally or otherwise, there was no other choice but FSF."
It's not the FSF's job to defend your copyrights. That's your job. They wouldn't even have standing to do so, as they've mentioned before. They're the copyright owner of the GNU system, so they can act to defend those parts, and parts where you've assigned them copyright.
"Yes he could be harmful but he no longer controls FOSS to dictate his ideology."
You realize he's the one that flies to places like India and gets governments on board with the Free Software ideology, right? And that it's his ideological strength that keeps us from getting massively burned by bad ideas like Open Source (ESR), Microsoft patent agreements (Miguel), non-upgradeable licenses and without a collective copyright owner to be able to relicense (Linus), non-free Java (Towns), etc.?
Saying 'he could be harmful' to the person who has done the most to reduce harm and dedicated his life to that is like a black guy saying 'he could be harmful' in reference to MLK. I mean good lord, the guy just coordinated on the relicense of Java as Free Software instead of its previous dead-end Open Source license, likely the most significant event in the history of Free Software! Did that harm you? Why is Microsoft so afraid as to be /personally/ attacking him and spreading FUD? That should be a hint.
Other 'luminaries' often fail us. Does he?
"The rest of the community needs to actively participate in the FSF"
I agree. Register as a FSF Associate Member[1] and set up a monthly donation. Then when you see Stallman fly to a country and they do an about-face and support Free Software, or you see a Java coming from Sun with the FSF's Classpath exception, you can proudly say, "I funded part of that". It's something anyone do to help out.
[1] https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom?
>I mean good lord, the guy just coordinated on the relicense of Java as Free Software instead of its previous dead-end Open Source license, likely the most significant event in the history of Free Software!
Step back from the fumes, grasshopper. RMS did no such thing. As you noted, he was busily running here and there with flowers in his hair.
Check with Sun and you'll discover that Java was GPL'd (V2) for compatibility and distributability with Linux. If somebody outside of Sun coordinated that, it would seem more appropriate to give credit to Linus Torvalds for running the project with which Sun wishes to pair.
Step back from the fumes, grasshopper. RMS did no such thing. As you noted, he was busily running here and there with flowers in his hair.
Check with Sun and you'll discover that Java was GPL'd (V2) for compatibility and distributability with Linux. If somebody outside of Sun coordinated that, it would seem more appropriate to give credit to Linus Torvalds for running the project with which Sun wishes to pair.
>Check with Sun and you'll discover that Java was GPL'd (V2) for compatibility and distributability with Linux. If somebody outside of Sun coordinated that, it would seem more appropriate to give credit to Linus Torvalds for running the project with which Sun wishes to pair
To be fair, working on an open source Java was tops on the FSF's agenda, and the FSF was busy at work doing that. There were many factors in Sun choosing the GPL, but the of the FSF were not insignificant. That doesn't mean that RMS had his hands on the actual deal, of course, but it does mean that he's still more relevant than some folks seem to believe. And I don't think that insinuating that he's a mindless old hippie is correct.
To be fair, working on an open source Java was tops on the FSF's agenda, and the FSF was busy at work doing that. There were many factors in Sun choosing the GPL, but the of the FSF were not insignificant. That doesn't mean that RMS had his hands on the actual deal, of course, but it does mean that he's still more relevant than some folks seem to believe. And I don't think that insinuating that he's a mindless old hippie is correct.
>To be fair, working on an open source Java was tops on the FSF's agenda, and the FSF was busy at work doing that.
Ahem --- They were making their own open source Java, not working with Sun.
IBM also has its own Java. Maybe Sun Open Sourced Java to get a competitive edge on IBM. Maybe we should give credit to IBM.
Microsoft's .Net platform with C# has been growing like weeds -- maybe soon to pass Java as a platform. Maybe we should give credit to Microsoft.
Sounds every bit as reasonable as giving credit to RMS.
Ahem --- They were making their own open source Java, not working with Sun.
IBM also has its own Java. Maybe Sun Open Sourced Java to get a competitive edge on IBM. Maybe we should give credit to IBM.
Microsoft's .Net platform with C# has been growing like weeds -- maybe soon to pass Java as a platform. Maybe we should give credit to Microsoft.
Sounds every bit as reasonable as giving credit to RMS.
Dino:
> Sounds every bit as reasonable as giving credit to RMS.
That the nice thing about success. There's plenty of credit to go around. The converse is also true for failure, of course.
> Sounds every bit as reasonable as giving credit to RMS.
That the nice thing about success. There's plenty of credit to go around. The converse is also true for failure, of course.
jdixon -
;0)
;0)
"Step back from the fumes, grasshopper. RMS did no such thing. As you noted, he was busily running here and there with flowers in his hair"
He sure did 'do such thing'. Maybe this is the problem, no one notices how much RMS actually does. RMS, Moglen, and the FSF were directly involved in talks with Sun in secret (as Sun tells us) before this happened about how to go about turning Java into Free Software. They even drafted the part of Sun's forthcoming license that will allow for linking the GPLed code to the binary-only parts from Sun until those binary-only parts can be replaced. How's that for pragmatic? Give the man some credit.
He sure did 'do such thing'. Maybe this is the problem, no one notices how much RMS actually does. RMS, Moglen, and the FSF were directly involved in talks with Sun in secret (as Sun tells us) before this happened about how to go about turning Java into Free Software. They even drafted the part of Sun's forthcoming license that will allow for linking the GPLed code to the binary-only parts from Sun until those binary-only parts can be replaced. How's that for pragmatic? Give the man some credit.
>Moglen, and the FSF were directly involved in talks with Sun in secret (as Sun tells us) before this happened about how to go about turning Java into Free Software.
Well, then, excellent. Cites?
Well, then, excellent. Cites?
>Ahem --- They were making their own open source Java, not working with Sun.
>IBM also has its own Java. Maybe Sun Open Sourced Java to get a competitive edge on IBM. Maybe we should give credit to IBM.
>Microsoft's .Net platform with C# has been growing like weeds -- maybe soon to pass Java as a platform. Maybe we should give credit to Microsoft.
>Sounds every bit as reasonable as giving credit to RMS.
I've no problem with giving credit all around, and I never said that they were working with Sun to create an open source Java, just that the efforts in general helped push Sun over the edge. Snarky comments don't help anyone and they do not further discussion.
I've no problem with giving credit all around, and I never said that they were working with Sun to create an open source Java, just that the efforts in general helped push Sun over the edge. Snarky comments don't help anyone and they do not further discussion.
"Well, then, excellent.
Cites?"
I've not been able to re-find the nitty gritty developer blog post about the OpenJDK relicensing, but here's the FAQ explaining it with less detail:
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#h4
"Q: How will the encumbered binaries be licensed? Will I be able to redistribute a JDK built from the GPL'd sources and the encumbered binaries?
A: We will be using a special GPL v2 exception written with assistance from the Free Software Foundation and Software Freedom Law Center that will allow downstream redistribution of such a JDK. For more on this subject see "Licensing"."
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g11
"Q: How can you ship the JDK with binary-only elements then? You said there were encumbrances.
A: Well spotted! None of the Java SE components included in this initial announcement are encumbered, so there are no binary-only elements. If, at the time we make the full JDK or other Java SE components available, there may still be encumbered components that must be shipped without source. The Software Freedom Law Center and the Free Software Foundation have helped us craft a special exception to the GPL to allow the full JDK to be built. This exception will be applied temporarily until the encumbrances are removed. We would welcome your help to make this happen as soon as possible."
I've not been able to re-find the nitty gritty developer blog post about the OpenJDK relicensing, but here's the FAQ explaining it with less detail:
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#h4
"Q: How will the encumbered binaries be licensed? Will I be able to redistribute a JDK built from the GPL'd sources and the encumbered binaries?
A: We will be using a special GPL v2 exception written with assistance from the Free Software Foundation and Software Freedom Law Center that will allow downstream redistribution of such a JDK. For more on this subject see "Licensing"."
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g11
"Q: How can you ship the JDK with binary-only elements then? You said there were encumbrances.
A: Well spotted! None of the Java SE components included in this initial announcement are encumbered, so there are no binary-only elements. If, at the time we make the full JDK or other Java SE components available, there may still be encumbered components that must be shipped without source. The Software Freedom Law Center and the Free Software Foundation have helped us craft a special exception to the GPL to allow the full JDK to be built. This exception will be applied temporarily until the encumbrances are removed. We would welcome your help to make this happen as soon as possible."
>Snarky comments don't help anyone and they do not further discussion.
I disagree completely, with an asterisk that snarky is in the eye of the beholder.
I don't know all of the ins and outs of why Sun decided to open-source java. I doubt that the FSF had much to do with that decision, although it appears that they were helpful in the mechanics of its implementation.
I think .Net was a bigger driver than the FSF. Sun has ignored the FSF for years and could continue to do so. .Net and C# have been growing steadily, and Sun was in the rather embarrassing position of pitching a non-free solution to the software community as a weapon against a free solution. Very strange waters indeed.
I disagree completely, with an asterisk that snarky is in the eye of the beholder.
I don't know all of the ins and outs of why Sun decided to open-source java. I doubt that the FSF had much to do with that decision, although it appears that they were helpful in the mechanics of its implementation.
I think .Net was a bigger driver than the FSF. Sun has ignored the FSF for years and could continue to do so. .Net and C# have been growing steadily, and Sun was in the rather embarrassing position of pitching a non-free solution to the software community as a weapon against a free solution. Very strange waters indeed.
".Net and C# have been growing steadily, and Sun was in the rather embarrassing position of pitching a non-free solution to the software community as a weapon against a free solution."
.NET isn't exactly a free solution. It's only ECMA standardized (doesn't require RF patent licenses FOSS needs like the W3C does), Microsoft patented a whole bunch of it, they've never made any sort of move towards "you can use this" for large sections of it, and Mono's current stance on that is that they know they have no legal protection for the implementation of those parts, but they did it anyway and will figure out how to fix it sometime else (their old stance included licensing the patents from Microsoft and taking it non-free). The problem is that those parts are absolutely vital for compatibility with other .NET code on Windows. Hence, with that kind of potential portability doomsday for your code looming overhead, there's been almost no significant activity with .NET in the FOSS world outside of Ximian, as people are rightfully scared of the lack of guarantees. From their FAQ:
http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing#Patents
"For people who need full compatibility with the Windows platform, Mono's strategy for dealing with any potential issues that might arise with ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows.Forms is: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless.
Not providing a patented capability would weaken the interoperability, but it would still provide the free software / open source software community with good development tools, which is the primary reason for developing Mono."
.NET isn't exactly a free solution. It's only ECMA standardized (doesn't require RF patent licenses FOSS needs like the W3C does), Microsoft patented a whole bunch of it, they've never made any sort of move towards "you can use this" for large sections of it, and Mono's current stance on that is that they know they have no legal protection for the implementation of those parts, but they did it anyway and will figure out how to fix it sometime else (their old stance included licensing the patents from Microsoft and taking it non-free). The problem is that those parts are absolutely vital for compatibility with other .NET code on Windows. Hence, with that kind of potential portability doomsday for your code looming overhead, there's been almost no significant activity with .NET in the FOSS world outside of Ximian, as people are rightfully scared of the lack of guarantees. From their FAQ:
http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing#Patents
"For people who need full compatibility with the Windows platform, Mono's strategy for dealing with any potential issues that might arise with ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows.Forms is: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless.
Not providing a patented capability would weaken the interoperability, but it would still provide the free software / open source software community with good development tools, which is the primary reason for developing Mono."
>Microsoft patented a whole bunch of it, t
Which parts have they patented? Patents are public documents, so that should be fairly easy to figure out, right?
Which parts have they patented? Patents are public documents, so that should be fairly easy to figure out, right?
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Actually, that's thinking faster than I can type, but I meant 'naivety' [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïveté]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïveté[/url]
Sorry that bent you out of shape.
> FSF don't have to do all the code, they will rely on developers and maintainers to the bulk of the work. If there are no volunteers, they they will hire experts. I said distributors and users have to donate for such a purpose didn't I. I thought you knew better.
Well, I know that FSF isn't capable of this without a lot of changes.
> OSDL is a good candidate
Maybe so.
Again, this would be a big project for any organization, and, it ain't just going to suddenly appear.