Show Us the Code (Linux Journal) [LWN.net]

Patents - pooling works for FLOSS too

Posted Apr 22, 2007 14:04 UTC (Sun) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link]

If "we" is the entire community of people who develop or use open source software, then "we" do indeed have many patents. Red Hat certainly does. IBM is the powerhouse here, though to be fair it's on "both sides" (really "its own side").

The simple solution, which many are already doing, is to simply release FLOSS code and say "you can use my patents, but only if it's FLOSS". This is an approach that works to FLOSS' strengths. The GPL builds in that idea. Also, organizations like the Open Invention Network aid open source software against software patent attacks. Their mission is to "further software innovation by acquiring patents to be used for cross-licensing purposes to defend the Linux environment - making them available on a royalty-free basis [to those programs]."

No, you can't say "everyone but Microsoft can use it" and keep it FLOSS by either the Open Source Definition or the Free Software Definition. Nor do you want to; things change. IIRC, many years ago some software was released with "everyone but South Africa may use" in protest of apartheid; when apartheid ended, it was hard to fix the software licenses to adjust to reality. (I can't find a good link that demo's this, unfortunately, though it was U.S. policy for a time to forbid export of software to South Africa government uses to discourage apartheid. Please reply with any examples of an open source-like license that forbid South Africa uses, because I think they dramatically show the danger.) Microsoft now supports a vast number of open source software projects; WiX and IronPython are high-profile, and it has its own SourceForge (CodePlex). You want to encourage "nice" behavior, not try to cast in stone a list of "bad guys".

Patents - pooling works for FLOSS too

Posted Apr 23, 2007 11:42 UTC (Mon) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

First, my comment wasn't totally serious.

[The simple solution, which many are already doing, is to simply release FLOSS code and say "you can use my patents, but only if it's FLOSS".]

Sure.

[No, you can't say "everyone but Microsoft can use it" and keep it FLOSS by either the Open Source Definition or the Free Software Definition.]

Even though I wasn't totally serious, I seems like you might not have read carefully enough or I may not have written carefully enough...

{So, should each of us offer to license to any and all, any patent rights we have now, or may aquire in the future, to any and all to cover their use of our patent rights in any non-Free software including software by Microsoft?}

This was about an offer to license anyone's possibly non-currently existing, perhaps never to exist patent rights to others (note: not to MS) for use of said patent rights in MS software or other developers' non-Free software they may aquire to USE. (Is that clear? It is not a license sold to software developers to cover their use of our possible patents, it is an offer to end users to cover the use of our possible patents in software they get from other.) In other words, to play the zany game that MS seems to be playing and hint that their software may be in violation of our patents now or may at some future point be in violation of our possibly future patents. (With a slight twist.) This license would specifically be for use in non-Free code. It could coexist with a license as you suggest above. Couldn't it?

Again, this is not a truly serious sugestion, but it may be educational to discuss. Would it be legal to make such an offer? If you held patents? If you didn't hold patents?

all the best,

drew

Intellectual Monopoly

Posted Apr 27, 2007 20:12 UTC (Fri) by kevinbsmith (subscriber, #4778) [Link]

This was buried in one of Glyn's replies to a comment, but I thought it was the most brilliant thing on that page:

---
The term "IP" is a very clever trick played by those who indeed want to own ideas. I always use the phrase "intellectual monopoly" instead, because that's what copyright and patents are: they are monopolies granted by the government for a limited time to encourage innovation and creativity. If, instead of talking about extending "property" rights for "IP", you phrase it as extending a monopoly right, that doesn't sound so good, because it's clear that something is being taken away from everyone.

I think we must work hard to roll back this term "IP", because every time we use it we reinforce the misconception that ideas can be owned. As soon as you get people to think in terms of monopolies, they become far less impressed by big business's demands for more "IP" protection, and the case for copyright and patents is correspondingly weaker.
---

I have heard (and agreed with) objections to the term IP, but this is the first alternative I have seen that really makes sense.

Intellectual Monopoly

Posted Apr 29, 2007 19:20 UTC (Sun) by BackSeat (subscriber, #1886) [Link]

I think it would be worth LWN highlighting this idea - in fact, as Glyn occasionally writes for LWN, perhaps he could write a short article to expand on and, more importantly, publicise this idea.

Intellectual Monopoly

Posted May 3, 2007 14:47 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

Indeed. I'd love to see an article on it, and get RMS' input on the the
term as well, as he often sees angles most folks don't. In particular, he
has to this point often emphasized the difference between copyright,
trademark, and patent, saying it's a mistake to group them together as it
masks important differences. However, it seems people like the
convenience of doing so, and if part of the objection was simply because
there was no simple and easy replacement term, well, that would seem to be
taken care of now. It'd therefore be interesting to see RMS' ideas on it,
hopefully either clarifying the why they can't properly be lumped together
a bit further (perhaps convincing a few more in the process), or allowing,
perhaps with some reluctance, that it's at least a minimally acceptable
alternative to spelling out all three longhand.

OTOH, IM seems like a redefinition in line with "Digital Restrictions
Management", which RMS seems to use with gusto now, and maybe it doesn't
have issues. =8^)

Duncan