Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[calmstorm]

Well since this post has been bumped from death to life, I will just add,  
that


my belief is that software patents not only shouldn't last longer than 10  
years, but they are also anti competition, anti social, and easily abused to  
turning people into the product.


Therefore, no matter what belief set people have, this is a no-win situation  
for anyone... in the long term.  Even if someone makes a lot of money off of  
the product and holds the rights gripped so tightly that people stumble,  
who's to say they couldn't make even more money if they didn't patent it and  
they learn from the other person who made their modifications... then they  
improve on the older modifications and their profits go up even more from  
learning from other peoples' tweaks!


My point, I guess is that you have to be lazy to need a software patent not  
just evil and corrupt.


Intelligent people shouldn't need patents on everything from A to Z forever  
and ever...


That goes against my belief and probably there are references since the early  
days of this world of people doing crap like this. aka, trying to hold back  
innovation


sigh, history repeats itself...

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

> contributions to these forums. But can I ask that you please trim your
> posts? Quoting the entire post to which you have replied is

Yes, indeed. I tend to do trim-posting now. That message is old. Sorry.

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[strypey]

Afeno, I really appreciate your thoughtful and carefully researched  
contributions to these forums. But can I ask that you please trim your posts?  
Quoting the entire post to which you have replied is unnecessary, and makes  
it more confusing and time-consuming to read threads on the web forum (or  
using a mail client that doesn't automatically hide quoted text). Where some  
reference to the previous post is necessary to make sure your reply makes  
sense, you can just quote the relevant section(s) inline (within your reply).  
Thanks a lot :)

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[strypey]

Time4Tea
>>> Free software is the consequence of many people working together  
voluntarily, as part of a community movement, with no interaction at all with  
large firms.  Red Hat tho. 

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[jodiendo]

adefeno read the article:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

read it carefully and you will understand the differences of licenses

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

Strange... something is off, and I don't which part...

The reference you gave says GPL *3* introduced implied patent grant.

However, as far as I understand, [1] says otherwise.

[1]  (under CC
BY-SA 4.0). Particularly, see chapter 6 ("GPL’s Implied Patent Grant").

2017-11-30T11:00:19+0100 jodie...@yahoo.com wrote:
> What is the difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3?
> http://www.ifross.org/en/what-difference-between-gplv2-and-gplv3
>
> GPLv3 of June 29, 2007 contains the basic intent of GPLv2 and is an
> Open Source license with a strict copyleft (→ What types of licenses
> are there for Open Source software, and how do they differ?)  However,
> the language of the license text was strongly amended and is much more
> comprehensive in response to technical and legal changes and
> international license exchange.
>
> The new license version contains a series of clauses that address
> questions that were not or were only insufficiently covered in version
> 2 of the GPL.  The most important new regulations are as follows:
>
> a) GPLv3 contains compatibility regulations that make it easier than
> before to combine GPL code with code that was published under
> different licenses (→ What is license compatibility?).  This concerns
> in particular code under Apache license v. 2.0.
>
> b) Regulations concerning digital rights management were inserted to
> keep GPL software from being changed at will because users appealed to
> the legal regulations to be protected by technical protective measures
> (such as the DMCA or copyright directive).  The effectiveness in
> practice of the contractual regulations in the GPL has yet to be seen.
>
> c) The GPLv3 contains an explicit patent license, according to which
> people who license a program under the GPL license both copyrights as
> well as patents to the extent that this is necessary to use the code
> licensed by them.  A comprehensive patent license is not thereby
> granted.  Furthermore, the new patent clause attempts to protect the
> user from the consequences of agreements between patent owners and
> licensees of the GPL that only benefit some of the licensees
> (corresponding to the Microsoft/Novell deal).  The licensees are
> required to ensure that every user enjoys such advantages (patent
> license or release from claims), or that no one can profit from them.
>
> d) In contrast to the GPLv2, the GPLv3 clearly states that there is no
> requirement to disclose the source code in an ASP use of GPL programs
> as long as a copy of the software is not sent to the client.  If the
> copyleft effect is to be extended to ASP use (→ When does
> independently developed software have to be licensed under the GPL?),
> the Affero General Public License, Version 3 (AGPL) must be applied
> that only differs from the GPLv3 in this regard.
>
>
> When is GPLv2 used, and when is GPLv3 used?
> http://www.ifross.org/en/when-gplv2-used-and-when-gplv3-used
> License holders can choose if they want to use version 2 or version 3
> of the software if the following reference is provided:
>
> "this program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at
> your option) any later version.”
>
>
> With which licenses is the GPLv3 compatible?
> http://www.ifross.org/en/which-licenses-gplv3-compatible\
> The GPLv3 is compatible with the following licenses (but not vice versa):
>
> Apache License, Version 2
> Affero General Public License, Version 3 (see sec. 13 of GPLv3)
> Lesser General Public License, Versions 2, 2.1 and 3 (LGPL)
> BSD license without the advertising clause
> CeCILL (CONTRAT DE LICENCE DE LOGICIEL LIBRE CeCILL)
> Artistic License 2.0
> Zope Public License, Version 2.0 und 2.1
>
> Note: This means OSS under a listed license can generally be used for
> creating OSS under GPLv3. It does not mean OSS under the GPLv3 may be
> incorporated into OSS which uses one of these licenses.
>
> If there is no reference to the license version, you can also choose
> between version 2 and version 3.
>
> The licenseholder is only restricted to a specific license version by
> the phrases "version 2 only," or version 2” without the added phrase
> "any later version".  This is the case with the Linux kernel that
> contains such a reference by Linus Torvalds in the COPYING file.
> Source text under "version 3 of the license or (at your option) at any
> later version" cannot be introduced into the Linux kernel, and
> conversely, code that is licensed as "version 2 only" cannot be used
> in projects that are already licensed under GPLv3.  GPLv2 and GPLv3
> are then incompatibl
>  
>

-- 
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
  gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se 

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[jodiendo]

What is the difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3?
http://www.ifross.org/en/what-difference-between-gplv2-and-gplv3

GPLv3 of June 29, 2007 contains the basic intent of GPLv2 and is an Open  
Source license with a strict copyleft (→ What types of licenses are there  
for Open Source software, and how do they differ?)  However, the language of  
the license text was strongly amended and is much more comprehensive in  
response to technical and legal changes and international license exchange.


The new license version contains a series of clauses that address questions  
that were not or were only insufficiently covered in version 2 of the GPL.   
The most important new regulations are as follows:


a) GPLv3 contains compatibility regulations that make it easier than before  
to combine GPL code with code that was published under different licenses  
(→ What is license compatibility?).  This concerns in particular code under  
Apache license v. 2.0.


b) Regulations concerning digital rights management were inserted to keep GPL  
software from being changed at will because users appealed to the legal  
regulations to be protected by technical protective measures (such as the  
DMCA or copyright directive).  The effectiveness in practice of the  
contractual regulations in the GPL has yet to be seen.


c) The GPLv3 contains an explicit patent license, according to which people  
who license a program under the GPL license both copyrights as well as  
patents to the extent that this is necessary to use the code licensed by  
them.  A comprehensive patent license is not thereby granted.  Furthermore,  
the new patent clause attempts to protect the user from the consequences of  
agreements between patent owners and licensees of the GPL that only benefit  
some of the licensees (corresponding to the Microsoft/Novell deal).  The  
licensees are required to ensure that every user enjoys such advantages  
(patent license or release from claims), or that no one can profit from them.


d) In contrast to the GPLv2, the GPLv3 clearly states that there is no  
requirement to disclose the source code in an ASP use of GPL programs as long  
as a copy of the software is not sent to the client.  If the copyleft effect  
is to be extended to ASP use (→ When does independently developed software  
have to be licensed under the GPL?), the Affero General Public License,  
Version 3 (AGPL) must be applied that only differs from the GPLv3 in this  
regard.



When is GPLv2 used, and when is GPLv3 used?
http://www.ifross.org/en/when-gplv2-used-and-when-gplv3-used
License holders can choose if they want to use version 2 or version 3 of the  
software if the following reference is provided:


"this program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it  
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free  
Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any  
later version.”



With which licenses is the GPLv3 compatible?
http://www.ifross.org/en/which-licenses-gplv3-compatible\
The GPLv3 is compatible with the following licenses (but not vice versa):

Apache License, Version 2
Affero General Public License, Version 3 (see sec. 13 of GPLv3)
Lesser General Public License, Versions 2, 2.1 and 3 (LGPL)
BSD license without the advertising clause
CeCILL (CONTRAT DE LICENCE DE LOGICIEL LIBRE CeCILL)
Artistic License 2.0
Zope Public License, Version 2.0 und 2.1

Note: This means OSS under a listed license can generally be used for  
creating OSS under GPLv3. It does not mean OSS under the GPLv3 may be  
incorporated into OSS which uses one of these licenses.


If there is no reference to the license version, you can also choose between  
version 2 and version 3.


The licenseholder is only restricted to a specific license version by the  
phrases "version 2 only," or version 2” without the added phrase "any later  
version".  This is the case with the Linux kernel that contains such a  
reference by Linus Torvalds in the COPYING file.  Source text under "version  
3 of the license or (at your option) at any later version" cannot be  
introduced into the Linux kernel, and conversely, code that is licensed as  
"version 2 only" cannot be used in projects that are already licensed under  
GPLv3.  GPLv2 and GPLv3 are then incompatibl
 

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

Also, interestingly, the [A]GPL (at least since version 2) has
*implied* patent grant and which is way more precise than most patent
grants, see [1].

Basically, something under GPL 2 (or even GPL 2+, GPL 3 or GPL 3+,
whatever) will also allow the licensee/receiver to make use of that
patented part and --- as far as I understand --- only in the licensed
work, and also allows the adaptations made from that work to carry the
same grant.

If however, someone makes a work that didn't come from yours, didn't
come from any adaptation made based on yours and happens to implement a
thing described in one of the patents, then in the worst case (not
recommended if you believe in Community Oriented GPL Enforcement), he
can get sued for patent infringement.

Inside the group of those who obtained a copy of the work, if one of the
licensees breaks the license, then (again not recommended) the licensee
can get sued for breaking the license *and* perhaps for patent
infringement.

[1]  (under CC
BY-SA 4.0). Particularly, see chapter 6 ("GPL’s Implied Patent Grant").

2017-11-29T20:47:30-0200 Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> Contributing a little more to what was said by others:
>
> First lets make a point about what is "economics". To put it simple,
> economics deals with evaluating how scarcity or abundance of a given
> resource (not money!) shapes how society behaves. Those who understand
> econmics feel free to complement what I just said, because I'm just
> simplifying the description.
>
> Now, what *isn't* economics? Simple: the art of getting rich. If one
> talks about "economics" in terms of getting rich, then you are talking
> about chrematistics (see [1][2]).
>
> Having said all that, lets dive a bit more:
>
> There are various resources in the world, besides there are those which
> are consumed when used, and those which are very costly/expensive to
> transport/carry arround, even more, there are resources that can be used
> and combined in order to form other resources that might have the same
> properties as the parent ones... or not.
>
> Thanks to computers and things that store stuff digitally, resources
> such as "knowledge" and "information" can now make other resources that,
> *by nature* (pay attention to this, it'll bite you in the future
> otherwise), are non-rival and non-excludable, both in the economic sense:
>
> - non-rival because, *by nature*, if one reads a digital book, for
>   example, its pages don't start to get old, neither they get undesired
>   wraps nor start to fall off. Furthermore, non-rival because, once
>   again *by nature*, it doesn't prevent another person to read that same
>   copy or any other copy originating exactly from the one you're
>   supposedly reading.
>
> - non-excludable because, *by nature*, there is no way to prevent those
>   who have not paid for it from having access to, say, the digital book
>   given as example before. Furthermore, the cost of transaction for
>   things originating from the "knowledge"+"information" combination and
>   which can be stored digitally somehow are almost non-existing, take
>   any computer file you have and which you received from someone else
>   and copy it anyware: you're done, the transaction cost for you was
>   almost nothing.
>
> Now, what does software patents have to do with what I said here?
>
> If one takes a resource that is naturally non-rival, non-excludable,
> which can be stored digitally, that came from the combination of
> "knowledge"+"information" resources --- to summarize: a public good by
> nature (in economic sense) --- and puts it under "contracts" (also in
> the economic sense) which are made like it's done for non-public goods
> (idem) and which excessively limit the capabilities of one party
> relative to what the offerer/provider already can do, then we have a
> tragedy of the anticommons, where everyone who *will be entering* the
> economic scenario and which could be providing a given public good by
> nature (again economically speaking) will feel tempted to hold up (not
> do anything), even though they might not know if there is already such a
> thing, this is well described in [3][4] and briefly mentioned in [5][6].
>
> In the other hand, if one makes the contract too loose so as to say "do
> whatever you want, I'll give you everything and not require anything
> besides attribution to me" then we *will still* face the problem of
> finding/fostering an oportunistic competitive behavior which further
> makes the tragedy of the anticommons stronger (see [3][4]), because this
> /homo economicus/ will attempt to proprietarize the adapatations done
> individually by that person.
>
> So both the receiving party and the offering one must find a contract
> that makes everyone possible to make everything as long as the thing in
> question and all the derivatives are kept under the same contract,
> furthermore, make all those involved contractually bound 

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

Contributing a little more to what was said by others:

First lets make a point about what is "economics". To put it simple,
economics deals with evaluating how scarcity or abundance of a given
resource (not money!) shapes how society behaves. Those who understand
econmics feel free to complement what I just said, because I'm just
simplifying the description.

Now, what *isn't* economics? Simple: the art of getting rich. If one
talks about "economics" in terms of getting rich, then you are talking
about chrematistics (see [1][2]).

Having said all that, lets dive a bit more:

There are various resources in the world, besides there are those which
are consumed when used, and those which are very costly/expensive to
transport/carry arround, even more, there are resources that can be used
and combined in order to form other resources that might have the same
properties as the parent ones... or not.

Thanks to computers and things that store stuff digitally, resources
such as "knowledge" and "information" can now make other resources that,
*by nature* (pay attention to this, it'll bite you in the future
otherwise), are non-rival and non-excludable, both in the economic sense:

- non-rival because, *by nature*, if one reads a digital book, for
  example, its pages don't start to get old, neither they get undesired
  wraps nor start to fall off. Furthermore, non-rival because, once
  again *by nature*, it doesn't prevent another person to read that same
  copy or any other copy originating exactly from the one you're
  supposedly reading.

- non-excludable because, *by nature*, there is no way to prevent those
  who have not paid for it from having access to, say, the digital book
  given as example before. Furthermore, the cost of transaction for
  things originating from the "knowledge"+"information" combination and
  which can be stored digitally somehow are almost non-existing, take
  any computer file you have and which you received from someone else
  and copy it anyware: you're done, the transaction cost for you was
  almost nothing.

Now, what does software patents have to do with what I said here?

If one takes a resource that is naturally non-rival, non-excludable,
which can be stored digitally, that came from the combination of
"knowledge"+"information" resources --- to summarize: a public good by
nature (in economic sense) --- and puts it under "contracts" (also in
the economic sense) which are made like it's done for non-public goods
(idem) and which excessively limit the capabilities of one party
relative to what the offerer/provider already can do, then we have a
tragedy of the anticommons, where everyone who *will be entering* the
economic scenario and which could be providing a given public good by
nature (again economically speaking) will feel tempted to hold up (not
do anything), even though they might not know if there is already such a
thing, this is well described in [3][4] and briefly mentioned in [5][6].

In the other hand, if one makes the contract too loose so as to say "do
whatever you want, I'll give you everything and not require anything
besides attribution to me" then we *will still* face the problem of
finding/fostering an oportunistic competitive behavior which further
makes the tragedy of the anticommons stronger (see [3][4]), because this
/homo economicus/ will attempt to proprietarize the adapatations done
individually by that person.

So both the receiving party and the offering one must find a contract
that makes everyone possible to make everything as long as the thing in
question and all the derivatives are kept under the same contract,
furthermore, make all those involved contractually bound to provide
everything that is needed in order to study and adapt the object.

Finally, one has to take into account that references [2][3][4] have
some minor issues, to know more see my comment on [7].

Now a funny observation: when digital technology started to appear,
people were used to seeing two distinct groups of people: (a) those in
favor of it; (b) those against. Nowadays those still exist, but (a) has
divided itself, so we have: (a) those in favor and which think it still
deserves the same old rival+excludable+oportunistic+competitive
thinking; (b) those in favor and which are contrary of (a); (c) those
against it. So now I'm starting to understand why Stallman seems to
recommend digital *extraction*, because if the new group (a) continues
this madness it will affect (b), (c) and the rest of (a). Besides, the
old (a) pushed its goal so hard that now it can't carry the burden of
realising what the new (b) is telling. Interestingly, at least from a
quick look, these problems don't seem to exist if one goes to a place
where everyone agrees and forbids use of any digital technology.

[1]

(under CC BY 4.0).

[2]

(under CC 

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[shiretoko]

I think the question here is a bit weird... "what does one respond"?
Well, if you're asked a question, then why not just answer what you think is  
correct?


I think it will not be so convincing if you just repeat what other people  
told you.
Maybe you can find examples of absurd patents and cases when developers have  
been unrightfully sued.


If you have just second-hand-information on the topic (like most people do,  
including me), then you can be upright about it and say: "From what I've  
heard i think patents are wrong because..."
Or "I don't know much about it, but I really dislike the idea of software  
patents because... (I believe practical knowledge should be freely  
available)".


You don't have to claim to know everything, and you don't have to try to  
convince people who already made up their minds.
At the same time, you can just question on what grounds the arguments of your  
opponent are based on. I mean let's look at the quote that you've given:



“Software patents are essential because they are the consequence of  
substantial risk-taking and investment on the part of firms. Without software  
patents or without adequately protecting them, the incentives of firms to  
innovate and invest would be undermined, with the consequence that consumers  
may be worse off as a result.”


How does she reach this conclusion? How many firms (I guess this means  
companies) has she observed in detail so that she can

put this thesis on solid grounds?
I bet there aren't that many. So if she's just guessing and telling vague  
ideas, then I think a simple "My guess is that you're wrong" can be already  
enough.

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[contact]

How many inventors had their ideas stolen by big corporations because of our  
dysfunctional system/patent laws? What about their money and time? Patent  
laws are strangling innovation. Patent laws were there to originally help  
encourage the sharing of ideas, now it is not about who is right, it is about  
who has the most lawyers. 

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[jodiendo]

something to read

Introducing the Innovator’s Patent Agreement
https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2012/introducing-the-innovator-s-patent-agreement.html

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[enduzzer]

So true. Patents stiffle innovation themselves. Patents beget patents. It's  
like trench war where patents are ammunition hoarded to counter litigation.  
It's akin to arns race. No innovative enterprise can afford entering the  
battlefield that is the marker without ammunition.

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[onpon4]

> Without software patents or without adequately protecting them, the  
incentives of firms to innovate and invest would be undermined


No, this is completely backwards. Incentives to invest and innovate in  
software are undermined by software patents, because they make it  
ridiculously risky to do so.


I think anyone who would make this sort of argument is either completely  
clueless about how software development works or what software patents are,  
or is actively attempting to bolster patent trolls by spreading FUD. I can't  
think of any other alternative.

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[masonhock]

Patents stifle innovation by preventing one from building on the work of  
others. It is inefficient to have to repeat work just because a component of  
your project is NIH.


The government should break up monopolies. Patents allow it to grant them  
instead. This incentivizes companies to pursue frivolous patents to hinder  
their competitors instead of coming up with new ideas.


"But how will developers make money?" I reject the assumption that coercive  
acquisition of wealth is the only motivation for innovation. Plenty of free  
software projects rely on volunteers and donations. Without software patents  
and proprietary licenses, they would be able to achieve even more because  
they would spend less time performing redundant work. However, even if we  
pretend that software cannot be created without a profitable business model,  
Red Hat proves that patents and proprietary licenses are unnecessary in order  
to profit from software development.


"But what if I have an idea that I can't realize without funding?"  
Crowdfunding or a Red-Hat-like business model can solve this problem without  
the disadvantages of antisocial software patents.


Software patents reward companies who can afford a large team of lawyers and  
punish potential innovators who have to rely on the strength of their ideas  
alone. They don't magically make people more imaginative.

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[Caleb Herbert]

> Free software is the consequence of  
> many people working together voluntarily, as part of a community movement,  
> with no interaction at all with large firms. 

Red Hat tho.

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[leestrobel]

For me, the key fallacy here is the mistaken belief that 'software is the  
consequence of substantial risk-taking and investment on the part of firms'.  
Software doesn't have to be that way. Free software is the consequence of  
many people working together voluntarily, as part of a community movement,  
with no interaction at all with large firms. Anyone with a computer can pick  
up a keyboard and write some software - possibly contribute to a larger free  
software project.


The GNU/Linux operating system and most of the packages that comprise it are  
manifest counter-examples that disprove their point, that software patents  
are essential for software development (e.g. Firefox, X11, GNOME, LibreOffice  
...).

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[ablocorrea]

Adding to what Salman said, that explains why patenting programs is not  
generally allowed in the EU, it is still allowed to patent computer related  
stuff, like mp3 was for a long time or the rar algorithm ¿is right now?


Maybe those computer related patents could make sense if they lasted for a  
much shorter period than now.


You might thing that a car company needs 20 years to find a decent profit  
from another 10 investment in the development of a new engine, but claiming  
such with computers is just ridiculous. The profit will largely overcome the  
spends in less than a couple of years, having in mind that no company will  
spend as much time developing patentable stuff as car or the "general"  
industry spend.


To show that it is possible to get a profit, you can always refer to RedHat:  
https://www.redhat.com/en/about/patent-promise

Re: [Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[smoha]

Read this wiki page:  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention

[Trisquel-users] How does one respond to this statement?

[sophoclestechnologies]

“Software patents are essential because they are the consequence of  
substantial risk-taking and investment on the part of firms. Without software  
patents or without adequately protecting them, the incentives of firms to  
innovate and invest would be undermined, with the consequence that consumers  
may be worse off as a result.”


This is a typical argument that is made in favour of software patents. How  
does one respond to it?