| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The trouble with OpenBTSThe trouble with OpenBTSPosted Feb 24, 2009 23:00 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)Parent article: The trouble with OpenBTS
"In other words, the FSF is distributing code with known restrictions on its use; this is a bit of a change for an organization which is not normally enamored of software which is only available for "private experimental use."
I don't think FSF was ever that concerned about patent encumbrances. They are completely ok with say a distribution including MP3 codecs.
(Log in to post comments)
The trouble with OpenBTS Posted Feb 25, 2009 9:24 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] I don't think FSF was ever that concerned about patent encumbrances. Did you read the article, and the blog referenced in it? That explains this particular situation a whole lot better than your "analysis" does. Certainly you should know better than to suggest that the FSF does not care about software patents.
The trouble with OpenBTS Posted Feb 25, 2009 12:59 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
I wasn't doing any analysis. You should look beyond the page hierarchy and read the content which has a reply from RMS on his position on software patents. My point is that that FSF is ok with Free software implementing patented technologies and has called distributions as Free despite them including patent encumbered code. In other words, they differentiate between copyright license restrictions (which they refer to as a non-free) and patent restrictions on Free software.
The trouble with OpenBTS Posted Feb 25, 2009 13:54 UTC (Wed) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
Well, that makes sense, doesn't it? There is a big difference between copyrights and patents. The copyrights "attach" to the distributor, a distribution is in control of any copyright restrictions they pass on to their users. Restrictions that come from someone enforcing some patent that they claim cover some specific use case by a specific user are completely out of control of the distributor.
That doesn't mean people using patents restricting who can use some free software aren't doing something that is something to be worried about. But it isn't anything a free software distribution itself can directly do anything about.
Sadly it is a fight that free software distros cannot fight in the same way they can fight copyright restrictions, those restrictions can be ripped out and worked around by replacing pieces of code without any restrictions based on copyright. Whether or not any patent claim applies to any software however is completely unclear and depends heavily on how and where the user uses the software for a particular purpose. You will have to fight for the freedom from patents in a completely different way from copyright restrictions.
You should be concerned about people and organisations using patents as restrictions on Free Software. But it is not something a software hacker or a (re)distributor can be held responsible for directly.
The trouble with OpenBTS Posted Feb 25, 2009 14:09 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
"You should be concerned about people and organisations using patents as restrictions on Free Software. But it is not something a software hacker or a (re)distributor can be held responsible for directly."
I am not sure what you mean by that. If you distribute patent encumbered code, wouldn't you be held responsible directly as a distributor? The solution then is to stop distributing code when there is active enforcement by a patent holder.
The trouble with OpenBTS Posted Feb 25, 2009 14:37 UTC (Wed) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
All software is potentially patent encumbered. I don't believe you can hold any hacker or distributor responsible for that fact (except if they are actively restricting their users rights through patent claims they hold themselves of course).
GNU/Linux distributors are producing and shipping Free Software. They have no influence on the patent restrictions some third party might wish to add to prevent users from exercising their basic free (copy)rights.
Sure, if there is active enforcement by a patent holder against you for distributing a specific piece of software then you might effectively be forced to stop any distribution of the code even if it is Free Software. But that also cannot be hold against you as distributor, you did try to distribute Free Software (given that the copyright licenses were all free).
The trouble with OpenBTS Posted Feb 25, 2009 15:18 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
"Sure, if there is active enforcement by a patent holder against you for distributing a specific piece of software then you might effectively be forced to stop any distribution of the code even if it is Free Software. But that also cannot be hold against you as distributor"
Given that Red Hat and Novell is currently fighting a lawsuit for some patent infringement claims, I do think that distributions can be held liable by patent holders. In places where software patents are valid and enforced, the effect of patents are similar or actually worse than copyright restrictions.
The trouble with OpenBTS Posted Feb 25, 2009 16:29 UTC (Wed) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
Agreed completely. For a distribution based in a jurisdiction where someone actively tries to ban some freedoms through patent claims, or for a distribution backed by sponsors that are easy targets for evil patent trolls this is a very serious problem.
But you shouldn't hold that against such a distribution. They are just forced to not distribute some Free Software that others can and will happily distribute to their users. That doesn't make such a distribution less free. It just means they ship a different selection of free software out of necessity.
|
|
||||||||||||