Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post)
The Washington Post reports
(registration required)
on the squelching of a meeting about free software in the World
Intellectual Property Organization. "Lois Boland, director of
international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that
open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to
promote intellectual-property rights. 'To hold a meeting which has as its
purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the
goals of WIPO,' she said." (Thanks to Joe "Zonker" Brockmeier).
(Log in to post comments)
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 9:39 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] The United Nations was created, as far as I can tell, by people who thought that "universal law" was now possible, and my impression (as weak as it may be) was that the United States had a lot to do with it because we were the only nuclear power at the time.Of course, things got complicated once Russia had the bomb. Now, a lot of people have a lot of ways to fight for their rights (or perceived rights.) even in the face of such incredible military might. Now, these big, powerful organizations are starting to get pressure for changes that rich, powerful people may not care for, for example, that someone might come up with rules that enforce *my* right to share my ideas, even if some rich guy doesn't want me to share them with anyone but him. Or, that I might enforce my right to say "you cannot steal an idea that I shared with everyone and hide it away for yourself." In short, I think the UN came about at a time when rich, powerful people thought peace meant holding a gun to everyone else's head, and everyone else would therefore do what they were told, rather than fighting amongst themselves. How long do you suppose it will be before they realize they are wrong?
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 14:28 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Well, Open-Source can be blown up from inside!Isn't only in Linux but there are other, i belive, applications and projects that have software patents inside, some of them well known ones, and there aren't any licences that agree to that use, besides the patent owners complaisence. IMHO, two ways exist to mitigate the problem: 1) The very hard one of stoping software patents, wich could only happen in europe (EU) now (JAPAN have them),... 2) Have a "ENDLESS" Writen Public License to all those patents that there are in Open Code, and that could be adden in context of Open Standards,... more or less like the IETF and WWW Consorcium,... tough job, but much less hard than above, because many Big Corporations, owners of the majority of patents, are now participating, contributing and "taking advantage" of the quality that the Open-Source method has to offer... But tomorrow, if IBM par example, gets to be in a financial down, much certainly to happen because business proceed by cicles, it could decide to collect money from all patents that seem ok now in open source... much, much worst than SCO now, because instead of dubious copyrights "we'll" have to deal with patents.
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Sep 4, 2003 13:45 UTC (Thu) by coolian (guest, #14818) [Link] I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you are talking about. Unless a license accompanies the code, it cannot get into the source, and that license absolves the software of marketability. Try again.
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 9:53 UTC (Thu) by gerardm (guest, #7388) [Link] On the face of it WIPO is an obvious choise for formulting ideas on Open Source and how it relates to IP. When WIPO for not obvious reasons does not want to address something like OSS, it does not make OSS go away, it makes WIPO less relevant as it does not want to address it.When WIPO is MADE to not address issues like this, it will make the bargaining position of the pusher less strong over time as OSS does not go away and in the end it will be a forum that will eventually address OSS and propably in a less favourable way for non OSS. This because more and more countries adopt OSS as a matter of policy. With no discussion/agreement on a UN level there is little that can stop the ascent of OSS.
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 10:09 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Free software is better, and it's developing faster, but WIPO have a loud voice. Most people that listen to them won't bother to research the real situation. So annoucments like this can slow the adoption of free software, thus buying more time for the proprietary software vendors to get their other legal attacks ready.We can't sit back and assume that things will fall into place for us. It sounds like they've cancled the meeting this time. We continue to push our side and next time they won't be able to cancle. We will win incrementally, if we work at it.
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 10:36 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Anyone have any practical suggestions (links, people to contact, etc?)
WIPO suggestions Posted Aug 21, 2003 13:28 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] From my experience working on the EU software patents issue, I've learned that to argue your corner effectively you have to fully understand the structure and workings of the organisation you are fighting. An understanding of similar organisations is also a bonus.This takes a lot of time but it is worthwhile if you plan to continue fighting this type of issue. "Information Fuedalism", by Peter Drahos is a great book for learning about how companies play the "intellectual property" game. Ciaran O'Riordan
WIPO basically just a front for multinationals Posted Aug 21, 2003 10:39 UTC (Thu) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link] WIPO is a moderately secretive, highly undemocratic organization that generally seems to side with multinational coporations. Granted, we have some multinational corporations on our side, but so do the other folks. So we should be wary of any suggestions that WIPO automatically works in the public interest.
WIPO basically just a front for multinationals Posted Aug 21, 2003 11:12 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] That's one of the things I've noticed about the UN and its related groups: rich govt's like the US start getting really smarmy when the heirarchy doesn't blow some magic political fairy-dust their way, but then the govt's get really bland about the UN when things "improve."I think it depends on who gives these guys the most money. I read a sci-fi story once where the world became a peaceful place after World War III, because a large minority of the population were telepathic, and because just about everyone on the planet knew how to make nuclear weapons.
Re: WIPO basically just a front for multinationals Posted Aug 21, 2003 11:21 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] I know.I've tried to explain to people that all the WTO protestors aren't crazy They are not accountable to the people the affect. Because it is all Add to that the effect they have on poor countries, their favoritism for
Re: WIPO basically just a front for multinationals Posted Aug 21, 2003 11:54 UTC (Thu) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link] The problem with that movement is that too many people in it opposetrade and free markets. They seem to oppose the free market system because they can't tell the difference between it and crony capitalism. They see the disgusting behavior of the ruling class and they jump to the conclusion that capitalism per se is to blame. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Re: WIPO basically just a front for multinationals Posted Aug 21, 2003 16:18 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] The problems of the anti-globalisation movement are worth studying.It takes more than noise to make a change, you have to know exactly what you want and be able to say it in the way that the people with power will understand. When trying to fight the software patent directive, the community collaborated to understand why software patents are bad. We then started writing to our MEPs saying that they must vote No. Our MEPs told us that ambiguity currently exists so a directive will be needed some time. They also said that it takes a lot of resources to get a directive this far. A No vote would waste these resources, but they want to help us. They want us to tell them which of the available amendments must be passed in order for this directive to be fixed. Unfortunatly we were not ready for this because we don't have expereince dealing with the European Parliment. So were working on a list of amendments now but we should have been ready for this. Effective lobbying requires that we do a LOT of homework. We've done quite well, we might win this one, but we have to do even better next time. Ciaran O'Riordan
Re: WIPO basically just a front for multinationals Posted Aug 28, 2003 6:20 UTC (Thu) by Wout (subscriber, #8750) [Link] These people don't necessarily oppose free trade or free markets. The point is that nobody agrees on what these things are. Does free trade mean slavery is ok? If not, then apparently there are limitations to trade. Should traded products be properly labeled (origin, ingredients, etc.) so consumers know what they buy? If so, trade is allowed, but there are conditions (thus restrictions on free trade). If not, the consumer is barred from making a proper choice between products (which I personally consider to be unacceptable). Finally, laws limiting immigration inhibit a free jobs market. If you want a completely free market you should open up your jobs market for foreign workers too.All the WTO meetings and the demonstrations against them are about what CAN be traded and what CAN NOT, and who gets to choose. Now the media like to bias the news in favor of the side that owns them, so they make protesters look like a bunch of violent loonies that complain about everything. That way you don't have to talk to them, you can simply send in the riot police.
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 11:56 UTC (Thu) by dokhebi (guest, #14023) [Link] I thought the GPL did protect the IP rights of the creators. There are just more creators of GPL's code than proprietary code, and that the holders of the IP rights give the public more freedom to use GPL'd code than Microsoft does its own code.Am I wrong on this?
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 16:29 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] That's the problem with "IP". The term lumps together Copyrights, Patents, and Trademarks. These three areas have almost nothing to do with eachother so when people talk about "IP", they are almost certain to talk crap.The GPL deals with copyrights. It protects the works of an author. The GPL section 7 requires says that for a program to be distributed, it must not require a royalty be paid to a patent holder. This means that companies releasing GPL'd code must allow royalty-free distribution of code that uses the patented technology. Problems arise when an author violates a patent without knowing it. A CAD company (Visio?) have patented the blinking cursor, and IBM have patented the nested menu system. It's almost impossible to write software without violating someones patent, it's up to the company to sue, so if we piss them off, they sue, or if we become real competition, they sue. The GPL cannot give people permission to use the patents of another company.
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 19:01 UTC (Thu) by omez (subscriber, #6904) [Link] I would have agreed with you. It seemed as though the reporter was conflating the purpose of the proposed meeting with the intent of developers who GPL their software. But the letter in which the meeting was proposed and to which the FSF is a signatory, implies that open-source software has evolved "without intellectual property protection."If the USPTO treats them like kooks, it may just be that they are kooks.
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 12:46 UTC (Thu) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link] I'm planning to send the following letter to the editor, and welcome comments which would sharpen it up (will give attribution if comments are incorporated):In his article "The Quiet War Over Open-Source" (8/20/2003 p. E1), Jonathan Krim gives thorough and accurate coverage to the squelching of an open source meeting by the WIPO. But he then concludes with the incorrect statement: "But open-source is not just a political challenge. It strikes a starkly different, and sometimes opposite, pose from that of traditional capitalist systems." In traditional capitalist systems, competition drives prices toward marginal costs, which in the case of software are negligible and effectively zero. Furthermore, competition drives quality and value up, and software distributed with source code is inherently more valuable than that without, as it enables third-party maintenance, customization, and derivative works (among other benefits) which are impossible with proprietary software. Therefore, "traditional capitalism" is what drives the adoption of open-source, in contrast to command economies which would make decisions based on other criteria and less likely adopt it. Open-source also eliminates deadweight loss created by proprietary software pricing, and duplicated work created by proprietary licensing. The production of open-source software is therefore inherently more efficient, and its products better for society, as long as the software remains open-source; this is one motivation for "copyleft" licenses such as the GNU General Public License which require that all derivative works be open-source. While open-source may resonate with the idealism inherent to certain non-capitalist systems, its adoption and economic benefits are entirely capitalist in nature. This is non-intuitive for those accustomed to dealing with markets with limited resources, but such surprising outcomes as the recent surge in open-source software abound in this information age.
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 13:23 UTC (Thu) by jcollardx01 (guest, #13784) [Link] OSS is dually capitalistic. First, as you mention, it creates competitive products. Second, it generates revenue -- not by the initial sunk cost of a software license -- but by configuration, personalization, and other such services that are offered as a natural by-product of the base OSS version of the software. Such a by-product is only available in copyleft licensing or very special (and usually expensive) proprietary licensing agreements.
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 13:43 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] You have a good point here, if you accept the notion that a capitalist society also tends to support artisans and individual craftpersons. During lunch today, I was discussing open-source software with a colleague, and I pointed out the similarity between open-source software development and the building trades. Those don't discriminate against customers by keeping building designs secret from them; in fact, any building owner is free to hire a contractor to produce blueprints using reverse-engineering.There is only one problem with your assesment: proprietary-software makers *retain ownership of all property except the physical media on which the software resides.* So, in effect, anyone using most proprietary software is only *renting* it. Renting is a perfectly acceptable concept in a capitalist system, because the net effect of rental is high profit and low cost, especially if you skew your laws against the renters, or, at the best, set them up so the renters will be happy with their lot. People need software, just like they need a place to live. The real issue with open-source software isn't whether it meets the criteria for good capitalism; the real issue is that software is virtual, and very easily clonable. Also, remember that the software "space" is beginning to sprout new life-forms. Software maintenance is no longer just a matter of improvements and feature enhancements. Now, it's becoming a battle between the software maintainers and free-radical entities that comb the Internet every hour of every minute of every day, looking for ways to render that software useless or annoying. So, much as I like the ideas you propose to send to the WIPO, I'm starting to believe that a better analogy for software might be farming, or animal breeding. When you do that, the issues surrounding open-source get a bit cloudier, because suddenly, you have ancestry, relationships, and "virtual breeds", and pedigrees, and all the rest that come with it. So, in a nutshell, what happens to the relationship between open-source software and the capitalist model when you use that sort of analogy? Just playing devil's advocate here; I hope WIPO changes their minds.
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 13:47 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] BTW, that came out of a really big cup of Mountain Dew. So if it's totally frenetic and useless, please, let me apologize! ;)
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 13:46 UTC (Thu) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link] * Do not hyphenate the phrase 'Open Source'* Don't use the colloquial word 'squelches' * "which in the case of software are negligible and effectively zero" Explain this a bit. * "in contrast to command economies which would make decisions based on other criteria and less likely adopt it." Better: "A command economy would be less likely to adopt it." * "The production of open-source software is therefore inherently more efficient, and its products better for society, as long as the software remains open-source" Better: "The production of Open Source software is inherently more efficient and its products are better for society" * "While open-source may resonate with the idealism inherent to certain non-capitalist systems, its adoption and economic benefits are entirely capitalist in nature." Better: "While some Open Source ideas differ from those that underlie the proprietary software system, the benefits of Open Source production are economic as well as social." * "This is non-intuitive for those accustomed to dealing with markets with limited resources, but such surprising outcomes as the recent surge in open-source software abound in this information age." Better: "This may be surprising to those accustomed to treating software as a scarce good, but this would not be the only surprise that the information revolution has in store."
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 14:29 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] The business about "scarce goods" puts a crimp in my analogy about farming, because software can only be a scarce good by intent of the producer.However, software *improvement* and *maintenance* can indeed be scarce, even if the software is open. For instance, if the people with enough skill to do this also want to add an advertising clause into the license, and those who are against this don't have the necessary skill or incentive, the software stagnates. This is no slight agains the GPL, but it is an example of politics and its relationship to software.
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 21, 2003 17:53 UTC (Thu) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link] Do not hyphenate the phrase 'Open Source'Sounds reasonable.
Don't use the colloquial word 'squelches'
"which in the case of software are negligible and effectively zero"
Explain this a bit.
"in contrast to command economies which would make decisions based
on other criteria and less likely adopt it."
Better: "A command economy would be less likely to adopt it."
"The production of open-source software is therefore inherently more
efficient, and its products better for society, as long as the
software remains open-source"
Better: "The production of Open Source software is inherently more
efficient and its products are better for society"
"While open-source may resonate with the idealism inherent to
certain non-capitalist systems, its adoption and economic benefits
are entirely capitalist in nature."
Better: "While some Open Source ideas differ from those that underlie
the proprietary software system, the benefits of Open Source production
are economic as well as social."
"This is non-intuitive for those accustomed to dealing with markets
with limited resources, but such surprising outcomes as the recent
surge in open-source software abound in this information age."
Better: "This may be surprising to those accustomed to treating
software as a scarce good, but this would not be the only surprise
that the information revolution has in store." Thank you for your comments. To what name may I attribute them?
The Quiet War Over Open-Source (Washington Post) Posted Aug 22, 2003 0:27 UTC (Fri) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link] > My point here (in some ways the point of the whole > letter to the editor) is to debunk the association > between "open source" and "non-capitalist", again the > term used in the article. I'm assuming the author is > intending this to mean "socialist" or "communist", > the typical terms naysayers attach to OSS.It is probably best not to make any reference to alternatives to capitalism. Any such allusion risks giving the impression that you _are_ secretly a commie — since the idea that there are alternatives doesn't even occur to a _real_ American. Just emphasize the true blue all American profit enhancing qualities of Open Source (if you want to follow Bruce Perens's example of pretending that this is a trademark, or "open source" if you dislike SillY CapitalIZatiOn). > Thank you for your comments. To what name may I attribute them?My name is Thomas Hood. However, there is no need to credit me for these very minor stylistic suggestions. Cheers
Links to the same story at other magazines Posted Aug 22, 2003 17:23 UTC (Fri) by vinsci (guest, #11945) [Link] This story is also published at:
|
|||||||||||