It took me a long time, but I have come around to share Pieter’s view. cr
On Jan 31, 2014, at 5:19 AM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > This is off-topic for ZeroMQ, but if you want my detailed > deconstruction of the patent system, and why I've spent years of my > life fighting it, see here: http://hintjens.com/blog:31. > > My views are on the public record. For two years I was president of > the FFII, the leading European NGO defining software patent policy in > Europe. We contributed to the relevant clauses in the GPLv3. I chose > that for ZeroMQ with the very specific intention of excluding any > contributor that used patents in their software business strategy. > > In short, the patent system does not help small inventors except in > freak cases. The _entire_ patent system is, in my view, a legal > parasite designed by professional sociopaths to feed off real economic > activity, leaving nothing but ruin behind. Every claim for patents is > based on the lure of easy money, wrong assumptions, bogus economic > theory, mistaken theories of innovation, naivety about legal process, > or outright lies. > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Laurent Alebarde <[email protected]> wrote: >> IMHO, everything can be hell or haven, including LGPL. It depends on one's >> motivations and intentions. For patents, lawyers are the tools of the >> owners, so what happens depends on the owners (except the patent officers, >> but they infringe only the owners). I agree also many patents are abusive >> and shaming. >> >> That's why I am also against patents on software. But it is not that simple. >> Software is just a tool. Many technologies need software to come to life but >> are not intrinsically software. Then patents may be IMHO legitimate. When >> you spend thousands of hours to develop an innovative technology, you can >> expect earning some money with it, at least to feed your children, isn't it >> ? >> >> Open source and associated consulting and expertise is a great economical >> model, but not the only one. Moreover, it fits some people, and not others. >> Other people are creative and technology centric. For them, the patent may >> be the less bad idea, even if many times it is finaly a real bad idea >> because filing a patent requires that you have funds to defend it. But it >> may also be a good idea, especially if your invention needs to be opened, or >> once again, the less bad idea. Many corporates are unfair, isn't it ? The >> guy who invented car wipers had to fight all his life to obtain the first >> dollar from his invention. >> >> When it comes to technical innovation, when you want to keep your freedom in >> a small business, when you want to spend your time in creation more than in >> service, what do you propose ? >> >> Of course, you cannot answer: consulting is great, make your technology >> free, raise a community, do expertise and be happy. That would be just what >> fits to some people, but not others. Besides, if the technology is simple to >> use, nobody will need your expertise. >> >> One may also hire a few people to do the consulting, and stay on the >> creation, but then you have to spend most of your time in management, what >> is creativity counter productive. You can also hire a CE, but then you may >> have other kind of troubles. >> >> You may also just stay an employee in a corporate with a cool R&D. >> >> There is no legitimate reason to prevent anyone to get freedom and to be, >> behave and work as he is, as far as the freedom and dignity of everyone else >> is respected and preserved. >> >> My 2 cts. >> >> Laurent Alebarde >> >> >> Le 30/01/2014 14:00, Pieter Hintjens a écrit : >> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Sojan James <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think zeromq is a great library to use for my project. At my company, all >> open source usage needs to be approved for use by a legal team. Usage of >> GLPv3 and LGPLv3 is flatly refused. One of the reasons is the clause about >> the patents. I don't fully understand the implications of the patent clause >> of LGPLv3 w.r.t zeromq. Does the static linking exception affect my >> obligations in any way? >> >> I'm basically looking for any information that I can provide to the legal >> team to discuss further if an exception can be granted for this library. >> >> The patent clause in the LGPLv3 applies to anyone using ZeroMQ, no >> matter how they link it. This is deliberate. The goal is to reduce >> patent lawsuits around ZeroMQ. You can read the full implications >> elsewhere; it's standard part of GPLv3. Any firm that flatly refuses >> (L)GPLv3 for these reasons is welcome to go buy commercial software, >> or use other products. >> >> Speaking personally, (software) patents are an infectious abomination >> that allow pseudo-lawyers to parasite the work of productive people. >> Firms do make the choice: either they embrace that abomination or they >> reject it. If they embrace it, they are dangerous partners and >> unreliable contributors. The LGPLv3 patent clause makes a good filter >> to ensure such firms do not join our community. /End of personal >> statement >> >> -Pieter >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
