I've made and put online a transcript of RMS's presentation and Q&A session
from the recent GPLv3 event: "The Future of Free Software" March 18th,
Turin, Italy:
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/torino-rms-transcript.en.html
Sections
1. First, a note on "intellectual property"
2. On to the GPLv3
3. About "or any later version" and transitioning between versions
4. Software patents: explicit patent grants
5. The four freedoms of Free Software
6. Digital Restrictions Management: how it was tackled without
restricting usage or modification
7. DRM and laws about effective restriction measures
8. Licence compatibility
9. Compatibility with Affero - addressing web services, if you want
10. Compatibility with two kinds of patent retaliation
11. The draft GPLv3 does contain a very limited patent retaliation clause
12. Requirements for notifying users of the licence terms
13. Question 1: What about Linux?
14. Question 2: About dynamic linking and languages
15. Question 3a: What if someone thinks the spirit has been changed?
16. Question 3b: Can writing Free Software beat DRM or is lobbying needed?
(Stallman's answer discusses democracy)
17. Question 4: Who is involved in the process?
18. Question 5: Why is there not a team running it instead of you, and who
will run it next time?
19. Question 6: What ideas for GPLv3 were rejected?
And I've added a link to it on the GPLv3 wiki page for such texts:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Reusable_texts
--
Ciarán O'Riordan ______________________ \ To support free software, join
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _____________ \ and tell others about FSFE's
http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ Fellowship: http://www.fsfe.org
Open source, copyright, DRM, software patents,
patent trolls, Creative Commons, the
seminar on the Gowers Review
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/03/14/gowers-review-seminar-notes/
sure hit a lot subjects that the readers of fsf are
intrested in.
The Open Rights Group attended the seminar and took
detailed notes. If you'd like to take part in the
Gowers Review of intellectual property in the UK, then
the easiest way to do so is on the new site
http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/ set up by
the Open Rights Group (Think eff but in the UK).
They have sliced the Call for Evidence into
bite-sized chunks, each of which you can comment on.
Or as Cory Doctrow puts it, War stories needed for
UK review of "Intellectual Property". The Open Rights
Group (ORG) has just launched a website where the
public can comment on the Call for Evidence from the
Gowers Review, a Treasury-level review of intellectual
property in the UK. The Gowers Review deadline is the
end of April, and it is an important opportunity to
provide an alternative viewpoint on copyright, patents
and other aspects of IP. We can be sure that the
industries which rely on IP will be lobbying heavily,
and it's essential we provide balance in the debate.
The ORG is particularly looking for first-hand
accounts of using IP in business (regardless of the
size of that business) or in your personal life that
illustrate the problems with the current regime.
ORG has no restrictions on where in the world you
are from, but it would be handy to know if people are
not in the UK. The same principles are at work in many
countries, and examples from abroad are instructive
even when there is no direct parallel to UK law.
"At the Enterprise Conference on 2 December 2005,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that, as
part of the Pre-Budget Report 2005 package, he was
asking Andrew Gowers to lead an Independent Review to
examine the UK's intellectual property framework. Mr.
Gowers will be assisted by a small secretariat of
civil service officials. The review will report to the
Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Trade and
Industry and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media
and Sport in Autumn 2006. The Gowers Review of
Intellectual Property launched its consultation phase
with a formal call for evidence on 23 February
2006."
"The call for evidence consists of a
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/97F/F4/gowers_callletter_230206.pdf
letter from Andrew Gowers, accompanying an
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/978/9B/gowers_callforevidence230206.pdf
issues paper, which provides details of the
scope of the Review and sets out a number of
general and specific issues on which we would
particularly like to gather evidence. It also invites
respondents to highlight other issues for
consideration by the Review."
What is the scope of the review I hear you ask, "The
Review will examine all elements of the IP system, to
ensure that it delivers incentives while minimising
inefficiency."
Hard to complain that not broad enough.
:)
Glyn
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Open source, copyright, DRM, software patents,
patent trolls, Creative Commons, the
seminar on the Gowers Review
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/03/14/gowers-review-seminar-notes/
sure hit a lot subjects that the readers of fsf are
intrested in.
The Open Rights Group attended the seminar and took
detailed notes. If you'd like to take part in the
Gowers Review of intellectual property in the UK, then
the easiest way to do so is on the new site
http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/ set up by
the Open Rights Group (Think eff but in the UK).
They have sliced the Call for Evidence into
bite-sized chunks, each of which you can comment on.
Or as Cory Doctrow puts it, War stories needed for
UK review of "Intellectual Property". The Open Rights
Group (ORG) has just launched a website where the
public can comment on the Call for Evidence from the
Gowers Review, a Treasury-level review of intellectual
property in the UK. The Gowers Review deadline is the
end of April, and it is an important opportunity to
provide an alternative viewpoint on copyright, patents
and other aspects of IP. We can be sure that the
industries which rely on IP will be lobbying heavily,
and it's essential we provide balance in the debate.
The ORG is particularly looking for first-hand
accounts of using IP in business (regardless of the
size of that business) or in your personal life that
illustrate the problems with the current regime.
ORG has no restrictions on where in the world you
are from, but it would be handy to know if people are
not in the UK. The same principles are at work in many
countries, and examples from abroad are instructive
even when there is no direct parallel to UK law.
"At the Enterprise Conference on 2 December 2005,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that, as
part of the Pre-Budget Report 2005 package, he was
asking Andrew Gowers to lead an Independent Review to
examine the UK's intellectual property framework. Mr.
Gowers will be assisted by a small secretariat of
civil service officials. The review will report to the
Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Trade and
Industry and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media
and Sport in Autumn 2006. The Gowers Review of
Intellectual Property launched its consultation phase
with a formal call for evidence on 23 February
2006."
"The call for evidence consists of a
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/97F/F4/gowers_callletter_230206.pdf
letter from Andrew Gowers, accompanying an
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/978/9B/gowers_callforevidence230206.pdf
issues paper, which provides details of the
scope of the Review and sets out a number of
general and specific issues on which we would
particularly like to gather evidence. It also invites
respondents to highlight other issues for
consideration by the Review."
What is the scope of the review I hear you ask, "The
Review will examine all elements of the IP system, to
ensure that it delivers incentives while minimising
inefficiency."
Hard to complain that not broad enough.
:)
Glyn
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Responses to the European Commission's patent consultation should be
submitted by March 30th. Below is a draft made from notes I made while
reading the questionnaire which I have cleaned up a bit and will clean some
more and propose as a response for FSFE.
=====Extra information==============================
FFII have a website of information about this:
http://consultation.ffii.org
I can't find FFII's response there, but there is plenty of information there
and their President has posted his own response:
http://consultation.ffii.org/Example_Answers
Florian Mueller has information here:
http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/florian-mueller-blog/position-paper/
Including his repsonse:
http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/PATSTRATpositionpaper.pdf
and a 3 page information document:
http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/PATSTRATquickfacts.pdf
If you do not have time to draft a response, you could support either of
those statements (if you agree with either of them), and additionally add
some clarifications / comments of your own. You could also choose to
support what FSFE publishes.
=====End extra information==============================
Draft response to the questionnaire "On the patent system in Europe".
Introduction
A proposal was made, in 2002, for a directive which would have allowed
patents on software ideas. This was opposed by Free Software users,
consumer groups, most of European industry (SMEs), and more citizens than
usually take part in the EU legislative process. It was also eventually
rejected by the European Parliament in July 2005.
The conclusions which lead to the Lisbon agenda were made before these
events. The patent system(s) of Europe may have seemed ready for the
Community Patent in 2000. Much has come to light, and much has been learned
since.
We welcome the European Commission's decision to defer the Community
Patent "until the time and conditions are ripe for that effort". The
current time and conditions are not right for the Community Patent,
but the problems are fixable. FSFE's specific concerned about patents
is in the field of software, and we look forward to assisting the
fixing of that problem.
FSFE would also like to note that some stake holders with limited resources
for analysis and cross-refercing issues such as this have opted not to
respond to this question. We therefore expect that stake-holders with those
with lower resources per-stake-holder will be under represented by the
responses to this questionnaire.
Section 1
We agree, as the questionnaire states, that "the patent system
... should be used ... for the benefit of all society". Thus, like
all law, it should be applied where it benefits all society, and
excluded from where it would cause overall harm to society.
Where the questionnaire speaks of "breathing-space" for patent owners, FSFE
would like to note that non-industrial activities of citizens must not be
restricted by being designated as the exclusive "breathing-space" of a
patent holder. That is to say that democratised acts, such as software
development and use, and the publication of information, which society is
able to participate in, should not become prohibited for the purpose of
giving "breathing-space" to patent holders.
FSFE would like to note that we do not regard the list of four patent
system features as being given in order of importance.
1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system?
On the the four proposed desireable features for a patent system, FSFE would
like to make one modification, one clarification, and one addition.
The modification is to the first point. FSFE does not believe that overall
objectives of the patent system should be compromised by (or "balanced
with") "the interests of the right holders". The existence of rights
holders is an artificial measure which occurs to serve the goal of the
patent system. Giving power of rule-drafting to a group which is created by
the rules could only yield an outcome with a clear conflict of interest.
The only balancing to be done is balancing the harm/burden to society with
the benefit to society.
The clarification is that to make "clear substantive rules", the 21
amendments which were submitted by members of all EP parties should be used.
We believe that the European Patent Convention is clear, however, the
actions of the European Patent Office and the expressed will of the citizens
of Europe show that it should be made even clearer by the 21 amendments
being incorporated.
The addition is mentioned in our answer to 1.2
1.2 Are there other features that you consider important?
The addition is that patent law must advance society rather than inhibit it.
It should enable people to further themselves, individually, or as a
business. This should go without saying, but patent law proposals such as
the now-rejected "software patents" directive, shows that this must be
explicitly kept in mind.
1.3 How can the Community better take into account the broader public interest
To better take account of broader public interest, developers of European
patent policy should look at the issues from the perspective of all stake
holders.
It must be kept in mind that some fields of endeavour are the exclusive
domain of large companies. The manufacture of cars and pharmaceuticals are
two examples. For these domains, medium-to-large financial, bureaucratic,
and legal restrictions can be justified because those who bear the burden
can be expected to have the necessary financial and legal resources.
In stark contrast, in the field of software, even small financial,
bureaucratic, or legal restrictions would cripple most developers of
software because most developers of software are individuals, small
companies, medium sized companies, or companies whose core business is not
software development.
Maximum transparency, and the involvement of the directly elected European
Parliament, is also requested.
Section 2
2.1 By comparison with the common political approach, are there any
alternative or additional features that you believe an effective
Community patent system should offer?
It is imperative that the seperation of power, a foundation of European
democracy, is maintained - and improved when possible. As such, one issue
that FSFE sees, is that Judges on any such "Community Patent Court" (the
Judiciary) should not come from the Execuative or Legislative bodies of the
patents field. The mixing of legislative power into the European Patent
Organisation (and executive body) is already being seen by some as the root
of problems in European patent law.
FSFE is also concerned about the transfer of patent-granting power to the
European Patent Office (EPO). The EPO has granted many patents contra to
the European Patent Convention, and the non-legallity of those patents has
been confirmed by rejection of them in national courts. With this history,
the EPO must clearly be given a more limited, supervised, and accountable
role in the patent process.
Section 3
3.1 What advantages and disadvantages do you think that pan-European
litigation arrangements as set out in the draft EPLA would have for
those who use and are affected by patents?
The advantages of such arrangements can only really be judged by the content
and substance. An agreement which benefits society by not creating software
patents would be beneficial because it would avoid imposing industrial
restrictions on those who cannot bear such restrictions,
We feel, however, that arrangements made within the EU legsilative process
are more likely to produce such results.
The EU's legislative process has enough problems with lack of citizen
awareness and participation. Allowing the circumvention of this process for
a process further removed from the people is a anti-democratic direction
which should be avoided. Instead, democratic processes should be followed
and ways should be sought to lower the barrier of entry for citizens and all
stake holders to participate in the legislative process.
3.2 Given the possible coexistence of three patent systems in Europe (the
national, the Community and the European patent), what in your view
would be the ideal patent litigation scheme in Europe?
(No comment.)
Section 4
4.1 What aspects of patent law do you feel give rise to barriers to free
movement or distortion of competition because of differences in law or
its application in practice between Member States?
The greatest barrier to free movement is the fear that can exist,
among bodies who do not have the spare resources for defending patent
litigation threats, of appearing on the radar of a patent holder.
The greatest distortion of competition is the use of industrial law
against civilians and businesses who are not in the same industry as
the patent holder.
Harmonisation could be beneficial if it included clarifications which could
prevent the mis-reading of the EPC. To do this, the 21 amendments proposed
by many MEPs before the July 2005 vote, should be incorporated.
4.2 To what extent is your business affected by such differences?
My employer is a user of software, and although FSFE is not in the
business of developing software for profit, we nonetheless develop a
lot of software because that is the normal way to use computers.
We have developed a website with a system for automatically updating
new sections, we have developed infrastructure for sending and
archiving email, and we have developed software for secure
communication via encryption and signing.
Software patents could prevent us from creating such IT infrastructures, or
from distributing the software we develop.
4.3 What are your views on the value-added and feasibility of the different
options (1) - (3) outlined above?
Suggestion #1: subject matter is the core issue and must be more clearly
addressed.
Suggestion #2: lacks defintion and cannot be commented on.
Suggestion #3: is the most promlematic of all. The conflict of intereste
inherent in patent offices which are funded by accepting patents would be
greatly amplified as offices could compete. Adding a validation step
involving the European Patent Office is unlikely to have any effect as the
European Patent Office has a proven history of expansionism/inflationism of
patent law with regard to subject matter and of lowering the standard for
other criteria.
4.4 Are there any alternative proposals that the Commission might consider?
Alternatives should begin with the 21 amendments which were proposed by
members of all the EP parties for the July 2005 vote. From there, a system
being developed must contain seperation of power, transparency, and must be
accountable when it strays from it's mandate.
5.1 How important is the patent system in Europe compared to other areas of
legislation affecting your business?
The patent system, if stretched to cover software, would pose great danger
to software developers, harm to Europes software infrastructure, and
distortion of competition law. Saving Europe from this harm is a high
importance to FSFE.
Using the patent system is a non-priority for us, and would get an
importance of 1. Participating in the administration and monitoring of the
patent system is of vital importance to us because changes in patent law
propose a real and serious threat, and would get an importance of 10.
5.2 Compared to the other areas of intellectual property such as trade
marks, designs, plant variety rights, copyright and related rights, how
important is the patent system in Europe?
The question is ambiguous.
It could mean: "How important is Europe's patent system to Europe?"
On this, I would like to note that the US Federal Trade Commission, having
reviewed the overall patent system in the USA, commented that the patent
system would be better if it was more selective about what subject matter is
covered, and it gave a wholly negative report on the outcome of the
patenting of software and internet ideas.
It could also mean: "How important is the patent system in Europe to you?"
As mentioned in answer to question 5.1, using the patent system is not no
importance (0), but preventing patent legislation from becoming harmful is a
very high importance (10).
5.3 How important to you is the patent system in Europe compared to the
patent system worldwide?
Patent legislation Europe is of great importance. Europe has the
opportunity, starting with the 21 amendments, to introduce highly beneficial
patent legislation and to become a leader of sensible patent policy. On
this, the USA missed the boat.
5.4 If you are responding as an SME, how do you make use of patents now and
how do you expect to use them in future? What problems have you
encountered using the existing patent system?
I am not responding as an SME, but as a software developer and user I
would like to comment that I have found the barriers to entry too
great for me to be able to participate in the patent system.
Instead, I am used by the patent system. The patent system could make me a
target for patent litigation and a potential market tool and even a
potential revenue source for others.
5.5 Are there other issues than those in this paper you feel the Commission
should address in relation to the patent system?
As mentioned in the preceding answers, the sensible exclusion of software
ideas from patentable subject matter, the separation of powers which
prevents distortion of law in democracies, the abandoning of the European
Patent Organisation's case law and the implementation of an accountable
system with proper checks and balances.
The costs, restrictions, and burdens of the patent system do not seem to be
fully considered. It must be kept in mind that every patent is a
regulation. Every patent is bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is sometimes needed,
but it slows society and must be minimised.
Closing comments
In closing, we would also note that we are concerned about comments in the
questionnaire which refer to "the field of intellectual property". The
comments made here by FSFE are on patent law. The laws contained
encompassed by the term "intellectual property" are so diverse and often
unrelated that comments on that field as a whole must cover great
misunderstandings or overgeneralisations.
--
Ciarán O'Riordan ______________________ \ To support free software, join
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _____________ \ and tell others about FSFE's
http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ Fellowship: http://www.fsfe.org
FYI -- in case you didn't follow the news last week: It seems that
software patents are back on the agenda.
[ http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/software_patents_they_re_back ]
Software patents: They're back!
freedom bits
greve
Sunday 22 January 2006
"I'll be back" has generally made it into history either as a
promise or threat by a mediocre actor and/or even more mediocre
gouvernator. But while the Terminator needed 7 years for a first
reappearance, and another 12 for its second, the "Terminator of
European Economy" (Mr Charly McCreevy) only needed months to bring
software patents back on the agenda, as we learned last week.
While IBM senior vice president John Kelly compared software
patents to nuclear weapons in his April 2005 statement to the New
York Times
"This is like disarmament. You're not going to give away
all your missiles as a first step."
the European Commission is happily pushing for the economic
equivalent of Terminator's SkyNet. (In case you are new to the
subject, you can read in this series of open letters how software
patents affect various areas of economy and politics)
Yesterday, German publisher Heise featured another article about
the reappearance of software patents on the agenda, in which
Günther Schmalz, head of SAP's software department, is quoted
saying "It starts again."
And just as the first Terminator went down after a long and
desperate struggle involving all sorts of fireworks, Mr Schmalz is
being reported saying that software patents were buried
due to the better lobbying of the opposition, said the SAP
manager. They met the members of the EU parliament far more often
and hit the parliament's nerve with their demonstrations.
but just like the second Terminator was more fearful and dangerous
than the first
the patent proponent expressed hope that his camp will be better
prepared this time than during the last struggle.
So they're coming back, and they are prepared. But so are we, and
like Linda Hamilton did not stop coaching her son for the next
meeting with another Terminator, we did not let down our guar. We
were always aware they would be back.
Günther Schmalz is also quoted in the following way:
Schmalz justifies SAP's commitment for a EU-wide regulation with
SAP seeing patents as the only way to ensure returns on its
development investment. Copyright is no solution, he continues,
as the actual writing of code only makes up about 20% of the
development of software. "Those who drive innovation need
patents", Schmalz stresses. "Those who don't imitate."
This puzzled me for a second in the same way that the logic of
proponents of "intelligent" design sometimes surprises me with its
circular logic, or in the way a person on an airplane trying to
open the door in mid-flight would puzzle me. I have tried to
understand how it is possible that the head of SAP's software
development could make such a nonsensical statement about software
development. Here are my theories:
* Mr Schmalz believes that software developers are essentially
glorified typists, and that whenever no key is being pressed,
no programming is done. This would imply a disturbingly limited
understanding of what software developers actually do.
* Mr Schmalz does not consider testing, bug-fixing and other
tasks to be part of programming. If programmers have to work
according to that maxime, it could explain the quality of some
of SAP's software, I guess.
* Mr Schmalz thinks that it is the act of typing that constitutes
Copyright, which would be an amazingly naive view of Copyright
law. It would also mean that the Copyright of a book would be
with the typist if the literary author "merely" dictated it.
* And finally my favorite: SAP is such a great employer that
programmers only have to work 20% of their time and spend the
rest reading the papers, getting massages, doing sports and
watching TV.
In any case this statement makes it seem like Mr Schulz does not
know much about software development or law. A peculiar combination
for a head of software development. But then: SAP hasn't really
developed anything innovative in years. And no, I don't dare to
predict the causality in this case. Bill Gates however seemed to
know much more about software development when he said in an
internal Microsoft memo that was published by Fred Warshofsky, The
Patent Wars (1994):
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most
of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the
industry would be at a complete stand-still today. [...] A
future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay
whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be
high: Established companies have an interest in excluding future
competitors."
But maybe Mr Schmalz was misquoted and he actually said that:
"Those who drive away innovation need patents."
Misinformation has at all times been part of the pro-software
patent campaign. Remember the term "computer-implemented
invention"? People tried to say this directive was about allowing
patents on washing machines, braking systems, battery chargers. How
many washing machines did SAP sell last year? Or the year before?
Why would a pure software company take an interest in this
directive if it weren't about software?
Truth is that this debate is only about software patents, about
monopolies on logic blocks, ideas and applied mathematics. Those
who would like to see these fundamental building blocks monopolised
in their hands are back. We beat them once, and we can do it again.
Because even though the second Terminator was so much quicker,
stronger and more well-prepared, we all remember the end of the
second movie.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
Dear friends,
Free Software Foundation Europe is looking for at least two volunteers
to help us maintain and extend the web site fsfe.org, the portal of the
Fellowship of FSFE. The candidates should value software freedom, have
at least basic programming skills in php and be knowledgeable of MySQL.
Applicants should commit themselves to give their support for at least
one year for at least a couple of hours per week.
FSFE will offer to these volunteers the possibility to take training
classes with eZ Systems - courses are most commonly held in Norway,
Germany, France. FSFE will cover the travel and lodging expenses of the
chosen volunteers for the duration of the courses.
The volunteers' job will be done via remote access once the training is
complete.
Please submit your application and a short curriculum vitae to
<maffulli(a)fsfeurope.org>
Thank you
--
: Stefano Maffulli : https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/maffulli/
`--------+----------+--------------------------------------------------.
[] | "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little |
[][][] | temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." |
|| : Benjamin Franklin, 1759 :
Hello,
I read recently an article against use of SourceForge:
http://www.fsfeurope.org/news/article2001-10-20-01.en.html
Now, I search for a service like this. Savannah doesn't seem to fit my
needs. What about BerliOS?
I consider using it mostly because they seem to offer access for own
cgi programs and because they are located in germany, where I live.
Are there any objections against BerliOS?
--
AKFoerster
Hello,
I wanted to bring your attention to a possible multi-national free software conference.
Just to provide you with a short summary:
I was thinking about organising a multi-national free software conference here in southern Austria.
This place is probably a good choice to do that as both Italy and Slovenia is just 15 minutes of car-driving away
from here. The conference should probably be a full-blown one including workshops and seminars.
If the thing is organised and a success follow-up events could be organised in the participating countries.
I have written a blog entry containing more information on this event which can be found at
http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/sp/free_software_blog/multi_national_free_so…
Everyone who is interested in contributing is not only welcome to comment, but asked to.
Please either comment here or (even better) comment on my blog.
Best regards,
Stephan Peijnik