[free-software-melb] Excluding free software from patentability
Hello All, On the subject in the subject line - Excluding free software from patentability - it concerns me that there is a emphasis on software. As demonstrated at LCA2012 there seems to be increasing interest in open hardware, and I think hardware has exactly the same issues as software does regarding patents. -- Brian May ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
Re: [free-software-melb] Excluding free software from patentability
> > The goal of free software is freedom for people who *use* software. To > claim that the ability to restrict other people with proprietary software > is a "freedom" is twisted logic indeed. > But that is a freedom. This comes to the double-edged idea that freedom cannot be absolute: if I have absolute freedom, then that includes the freedom to restrict your freedom. So all freedoms are a compromise. This is why there is no "most free" software license. The GPL restricts the freedoms of the recipient of the software by forcing them to grant certain freedoms to their recipients. The BSD grants more freedoms to the recipient of the software, including the freedom to restrict other people. Neither is "more free" than the other; they simply grant different freedoms. The freedom to write proprietary software is absolutely a freedom I think everybody should have. There should be no "law" or contract that forces software developers to release their program source code. I would prefer it if they did, but I don't believe they should be forced to. And merely distributing proprietary software is not restricting other people -- they are free not to use it. As we have discussed elsewhere in this group, there are other things that *do* force proprietary software (such as when governments mandate it, or when files are distributed that require proprietary tools to open, or when hardware is hostile to installation of custom software) -- and I agree that those are bad, but merely creating proprietary software does not restrict anybody's freedom. The freedom to write proprietary software should also extend to the patent system. If I am free to implement a certain technology, but only under the condition that I release my source code, then that is not really freedom, because it means that some company is dictating the manner in which I must release my software. Secondly, you're welcome to "reverse engineer" GPL software any time > without infringing copyright (assuming this means looking at the task the > program performs and writing a new program that does a similar task). You > may have infringed patent law though. This is another example why copyright > and patent should be discussed separately. > I was discussing it separately -- that's why I put it in a clearly-marked "off topic" section. I was specifically referring to Richard Stallman's proposal for shorter copyright terms, nothing to do with patents. I was referring to incorporating the exact code into a new program. That is, compare: 1. Taking the binary of a 5 year old proprietary program, reverse engineering the code, and then using the exact same code in a new proprietary program. Versus, 2. Taking the source to a 5 year old GPL program, and using the exact same code in a new proprietary program. Under current laws, both of these are violations of copyright law. Under his proposed "shorter copyrights but not for free software" law, #1 would be legal (because the proprietary software would be in the public domain), whereas #2 would be illegal (because the GPL software would still be protected by long copyright, and using it in a proprietary program is a violation of the GPL). My point was that this proposal would make certain uses of proprietary programs more permissive than uses of free programs. ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
Re: [free-software-melb] Excluding free software from patentability
On 13/02/12 12:45, Matt Giuca wrote: Having a shorter copyright term, but keeping the long term for free software would mean that the above clause is no longer true. In this world, I would have certain freedoms with proprietary software that I would not have with GPL software. For example, I would be allowed to reverse engineer a 5-year-old proprietary program and incorporate it into my proprietary software, while the GPL software would still be under copyright and I could not do that. So the GPL would no longer be merely granting additional rights to the user; it would also be taking away some rights (the lapse into the public domain after a short period). The goal of free software is freedom for people who *use* software. To claim that the ability to restrict other people with proprietary software is a "freedom" is twisted logic indeed. Secondly, you're welcome to "reverse engineer" GPL software any time without infringing copyright (assuming this means looking at the task the program performs and writing a new program that does a similar task). You may have infringed patent law though. This is another example why copyright and patent should be discussed separately. Regards, Ben ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
Re: [free-software-melb] Excluding free software from patentability (was: Video/audio from patents talk and committee hearing)
On 12/02/12 12:05, Matt Giuca wrote: I thought that there was a really great idea from a commenter at the end of your talk whereby free software would be considered by law 'in the public interest' and becomes except from applying to patent lawsuits at all. Not only would this meet our goals of being able to write and use free software without consequence, but it would also encourage businesses to publish free software to protect their efforts. I like it. I share Ciarán's objections to this idea, but I thought I'd add some points of my own. Not wanting to open the "GPL vs BSD" debate -- I find the GPL more to my liking, but I still think it's important that people be able to license things as they wish, and this idea would seem incompatible with the ideals of the BSD license. Saying "free software is exempt from patents" would mean that any BSD-licensed software that infringes on others patents would not be a fully open product. You could use it in other free software projects, but you would be unable to use it in a proprietary product without patent issues. So effectively, it would transform the BSD into the GPL. Also, would this law be applied to free-as-in-speech software, or free-as-in-beer software, or both? If I write a proprietary program but give it away for free (freeware), am I exempt? If I write a GPL program but sell it, am I exempt? It seems a tad unfair to say that commercial open source software is exempt from patent lawsuits, as it would mean that a company could gain exemption merely by providing the source code to their software. That would further our interests, but I'm not sure it would really be in the interest of the industry. While I like free software, I respect the right for people and companies to keep secrets, if they wish. I prefer to let the market decide: if you want to lock up your software, then I won't buy it, but that doesn't mean I should be able to stop you from doing so. I find it troubling when people suggest special rules for free software. For example, at a recent talk, someone asked Richard Stallman: "if you want shorter (5 year) copyright terms, wouldn't that mean that all GPL'd software would go into the public domain after 5 years and it could then legally be used in proprietary software." And his answer was that there would have to be a special exception for free software so that the copyright term lasted longer. Sorry, Richard. I like the GPL and what you've done, but it seems hypocritical to ask for everybody else's copyright to expire but let us keep ours because it suits our interests. Patents are a plague on the entire software industry. They are bad for free software. They are bad for proprietary software. Patent reform therefore needs to be industry-wide. We can't make this a free vs proprietary issue, because it's bigger than that. It's bigger than the issue of whether source code is available and whether you are free to modify it -- this is a fundamental issue of being allowed to write any software you can imagine, and I want the right to be able to do that whether I am releasing my source code or not. Matt's last paragraph is excellent and I agree heartily that patent reform is needed for the entire software industry. The first three paragraphs are quite flawed though. I realise I'm going well off topic, but I'd like to address Matt's points about free software: Endowing a benefit to free software by excluding it from patentability in no way "transforms the BSD into the GPL". Sure if you use BSD-licensed code in a proprietary program you wouldn't receive the proposed patent exclusion benefit. That's no different to today's situation though. This suggestion really is just inciting GPL/BSD flaming. Free software makes no distinction between software distributed at zero price and software sold for a fee. This means the questions posed about cost aren't relevant. Discussions of copyright are irrelevant to discussion on patents. Besides that, endowing a copyright benefit to free software would be endowing a benefit to society as a whole. There's no hypocrisy there. Regards, Ben ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
