#116578 - Lynx - Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:54 am
| Firon wrote: |
| Linux isn't making the switch to v3. No one is forced to switch to it, either. |
Actually, yes and no. The Linux Kernel isn't going with it because Linus isn't going to switch, but all of the GNU tools (basically, a ton of crap that is just refered to as part of Linux even though it is really GNU/Linux) are going to V3. And if I understand correct, any FSF "funded" project will also be going to V3. So, unless a ton of people start writing GNU and FSF software replacements, the Linux kernel will be useless.
If in fact the FSF goes with V3, it will be known that they have went completely insane and will be the reason for their own demise. Check out the information made available on linux-watch.com for a summary of the issues with V3 and what it's effects may have on the OSS community. And why the major money providers to OSS will stop providing that money, as they have tons of patents at risk.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#116580 - Firon - Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:02 am
If enough developers are unhappy about it, they can fork the code at the moment it switches to v3. There's already a lot of support against it, so it is entirely possible that the majority of OSS developers will stick with GPLv2 (or whatever license they use that's not v3).
#116596 - tepples - Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:01 am
| Lynx wrote: |
| The Linux Kernel isn't going with it because Linus isn't going to switch, but all of the GNU tools (basically, a ton of crap that is just refered to as part of Linux even though it is really GNU/Linux) are going to V3. And if I understand correct, any FSF "funded" project will also be going to V3. So, unless a ton of people start writing GNU and FSF software replacements, the Linux kernel will be useless. |
No, it'll just be a kernel under GPL v2 with a userland under GPL v3. There's no problem with this, as Linus has agreed not to consider syscalls from user space to kernel space as "linking" per GPL v2. I develop LOCKJAW using GNU software (Coreutils, devkitARM GCC, devkitARM Binutils, MinGW GCC, and MinGW Binutils) under a proprietary kernel (NT 5), and even if Coreutils, GCC, and Binutils go to GPL v3, there's no problem due to the operating system exception in GPL v2 and in the GPL v3 draft that I read.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#116635 - Lynx - Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:06 pm
Except that if you are a large company, and half the the OS you want to run is under V3, what decision are you going to make? 1) get rid of it all, as there is to much risk toward your companies patents, cease spending money on any OSS projects. or 2) keep using it, hope that your don't lose your patents (which many companies create thousands of new patents every year) or violate some other half-baked idea the FSF came up with.
Bottom line, any company that owns a patent will not use any V3'd software. It's easy to say just fork it all, but it's not easy to do, as you have to double all the developers for every project the FSF makes V3 and any other project that some idiot decides to make V3.
The problem I see, is that big companies are spending lots of money on OSS development, and that is going to stop. Do you think apache would be where it is today if it was just some kids working on it in their basement? Same with MySQL.. these are professionally paid programmers working on this OSS and when that ends because the companies funding it gets kicked in the nuts by V3, who's going to fund these projects then? Joe making $150,000 a year to write OSS isn't going to continue because he thinks it is fun.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#116636 - tepples - Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:26 pm
| Lynx wrote: |
| Except that if you are a large company, and half the the OS you want to run is under V3, what decision are you going to make? |
Run GPL code and your code in separate programs. Per the "mere aggregation" clause of the GPL, separate programs on one hard drive do not bring your code under the GPL. I have both devkitARM and Tetris Elements installed on my PC, but the presence of devkitARM does not affect the licensing of Tetris Elements.
| Quote: |
| keep using it, hope that your don't lose your patents (which many companies create thousands of new patents every year) or violate some other half-baked idea the FSF came up with. |
Then don't distribute software that includes both your patented processes and someone else's GPL code. Only when a patented process and GPL code are combined into one Program does that specific patent become subject to GPL v2's implicit license and GPL v3's explicit covenant not to sue, and this covenant is limited to "essential patent claims", which the GPL v3 defines as follows:
| Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen wrote: |
| A party's "essential patent claims" in a work are all patent claims that the party can give permission to practice, whether already acquired or to be acquired, that would be infringed by making, using, or selling the work. |
Besides, even if you combine GPL code with your patented process, the covenant not to sue extends only to GPL software, not your competitor's proprietary software.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#116765 - Lynx - Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:36 am
Those suggestions might work for a mom and pop shop that registered a patent, but not for a billion dollar company with million dollar lawyers. Keep in mind that every law and license is up for interpretation. It's the lawyers job to make the judge agree with your interpretation. If the judge doesn't, your in big trouble.
What I'm talking about is companies that spend lots of money on developing OSS, not just using it. They are the reason some of the software used every day is to the point it is. So I'm not talking about any propriatary software, I'm talking about patent owners creating OSS and funding OSS projects. And if they sue to inforce a patent (which, I believe is required to maintain that patent), they violate V3.
So, let's just use Google for an example, as they spend money on funding OSS projects and I'm sure they own some patents as well. Do you think V3 is a threat to Google? Do you think it would be in Googles best interest to continue funding OSS projects? Do you think it would be in their best interest to use OSS that may contain V3 licensed code? Should a company the size of Google even put themselves at risk at all?
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#116797 - tepples - Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:22 pm
| Lynx wrote: |
| What I'm talking about is companies that spend lots of money on developing OSS, not just using it. They are the reason some of the software used every day is to the point it is. So I'm not talking about any propriatary software, I'm talking about patent owners creating OSS and funding OSS projects. And if they sue to inforce a patent (which, I believe is required to maintain that patent), they violate V3. |
Can you cite a specific part of the latest draft of the GPL v3 the affects all patents that the company owns, even if they are not "essential patent claims" to a given piece of GPL covered code that the patent holder has published?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#116839 - Lynx - Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:18 am
Dude.. what are you talking about? Just open the current draft of the GPL v3 and search on patent. Then, read each paragraph talking about it.
Then, remember that it still open to interpretation. "essential" to what? The company, or the software they may be sueing about?
5 of the additional requirements. If you use GPL v3 software, and you file a suit alleging that "some software" infringes a patent.. Some software? Come on!
Bottom line, you own a software patent, and you use OSS, if you ever try to defend a patent, you lose your right to use any GPL v3 software.
What does this mean:
| Quote: |
| For example, if you accept a patent license that prohibits royalty-free conveying by those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program. |
How are you interpreting the liscense to think otherwise?
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#116843 - tepples - Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:40 am
| Lynx wrote: |
| Dude.. what are you talking about? Just open the current draft of the GPL v3 and search on patent. Then, read each paragraph talking about it. |
I did.
| Quote: |
| Then, remember that it still open to interpretation. "essential" to what? The company, or the software they may be sueing about? |
Most patent licenses that I've read use a definition of "essential" equivalent to the following, quoted from GPL v3:
| FSF wrote: |
| A party's "essential patent claims" in a work are all patent claims that the party can give permission to practice, whether already acquired or to be acquired, that would be infringed by making, using, or selling the work. |
Wikipedia backs up this definition.
| Quote: |
| 5 of the additional requirements. If you use GPL v3 software, and you file a suit alleging that "some software" infringes a patent.. Some software? Come on! |
Then don't distribute software under a license that includes the optional additional requirement 5.
| Quote: |
| Bottom line, you own a software patent, and you use OSS, if you ever try to defend a patent, you lose your right to use any GPL v3 software. |
No, you lose your right to use any GPL v3 software that includes additional requirement 5.
Are you claiming that software patents are good for the industry?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#116849 - Lynx - Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:11 am
| tepples wrote: |
| Are you claiming that software patents are good for the industry? |
Heck NO! That's like saying lawyers are good people.. :) But, when you need one, they can be your best friend.
Anyway, my point is that although everyone hates software patents, not all companies that have them are bad, or doing it to screw everyone (although there are companies that are).
But, there are companies that own software patents, yet sink tons of money into OSS. And that, believe it or not, a lot of OSS projects are funded by companies with software patents. If you restrict these companies from using OSS, they will stop funding OSS projects. And like I said before, developers making good money aren't going to continue working on an OSS project because they think it's fun.
Attacking companies with software patents isn't going to resolve anything, nor stop them from registering more patents. They would have a better chance forming a fund to buy software patents to make them available, or to not enforce them so they are desovled (if that in fact does happen, I know it does with trademarks, I'm not really sure with patents).
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#116850 - tepples - Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:21 am
| Lynx wrote: |
| not all companies that have them are bad, or doing it to screw everyone (although there are companies that are). |
Which is why option 5 suggests a formulation such that software patents may be used defensively in a countersuit without invalidating the license.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#116856 - keldon - Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:21 am
| tepples wrote: |
| Are you claiming that software patents are good for the industry? |
Many software patents aren't, but it begs the question of why you would invest millions on researching new discoveries that anyone can now make use of. 'Trivial' patents are wrong like Amazon's one click buy and the T9 patent!
#116875 - tepples - Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:49 pm
| keldon wrote: |
| tepples wrote: | | Are you claiming that software patents are good for the industry? |
Many software patents aren't, but it begs the question of why you would invest millions on researching new discoveries that anyone can now make use of. 'Trivial' patents are wrong like Amazon's one click buy and the T9 patent! |
The problem is that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has done a piss-poor job with the quality of its patent examination. Garbage patents are worse than no patents.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#116915 - Lynx - Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:18 pm
That's because the guys at the patent office are like 90 years old and never used a computer. You type WiFi and they get confused and grant your patent because they don't want to look like a bunch of idiots (which they obviously are).
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#116920 - keldon - Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:17 am
I really couldn't care less what patent has been issued; I will not pay a penny to use something like T9 or one click buying (although I doubt anyone else does). Having said that a company couldn't risk a lawsuit, but I'm very Howard Hughes in that type of situation!
#117001 - sgeos - Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:47 pm
No one will go after you as an individual, but if there is money on the table and they think they can take it from you, they just might try to do that.
-Brendan
#117017 - Lynx - Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:15 pm
Looks good to me, if you remove the naked dude.
EDIT: Nice.. that's what happens when you reply to multiple threads at once.. :/
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
Last edited by Lynx on Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:28 am; edited 1 time in total
#117260 - zzo38computer - Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:45 pm
I don't like patents, and I would never want to patent anything! I don't like DRM either. I still think it needs another restriction, to prevent the copyright holder from revoking the license or excluding anyone from the license.
_________________
Important: Please send messages about FWNITRO to the public forum, not privately to me.
#117262 - tepples - Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:52 pm
| zzo38computer wrote: |
| I still think it needs another restriction, to prevent the copyright holder from revoking the license or excluding anyone from the license. |
You mean like this?
| In the draft of GPLv3, FSF wrote: |
| All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. |
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#117263 - keldon - Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:58 pm
| zzo38computer wrote: |
| I don't like patents, and I would never want to patent anything! |
So if you had a billion dollars are you telling me you would invest it into a project that will make grand revelations; but be happy for a manufacturer in China to then go ahead and release it and take profits for a market you created!!!
The history of patents originate back to Europe where some professionals had developped glass making techniques and the government allowed them exclusive use of it for a fee. People need some protection for their research; having said the costs make it difficult for individuals to get patents for all of their ideas.
#117264 - Firon - Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:15 pm
Patents are bad when they patent stuff that shouldn't be allowed to get patented. They're also bad when a company holds a patent for something, waits for a lot of companies to use it, then years after it becomes popular, sues everyone. It should be like a trademark: use it or lose it.
I also don't agree with software parents.
#117265 - keldon - Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:25 pm
There are plenty of trivial software patents that I hate; T9 and Amazon's one click buy. Technically you cannot patent an algorithm unless it meets certain conditions; but if I found a fast way of [say] rendering semi transparent polygons, or a faster way of rendering 4-d effects such as true motion blur based on the velocities of each pixel; then I would want something back from such a discovery.
#117275 - zzo38computer - Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:27 am
| keldon wrote: |
| zzo38computer wrote: | | I don't like patents, and I would never want to patent anything! |
So if you had a billion dollars are you telling me you would invest it into a project that will make grand revelations; but be happy for a manufacturer in China to then go ahead and release it and take profits for a market you created!!!
...... |
Yes, but I wouldn't allow anyone else to patent it either. I do not want to restrict other people's freedom by things like this. I might get money just by selling this stuff, but if a Chinese person really does it in a better way than I do it and for a lower price, then the Chinese way may be better (I would still like other people to be able to do it as well, though, it can't be left exclusively to the Chinese!). I might make profit, but not all of it. I am not the person to be greedy, I prefer to be fair, and do unto other as you would have them do unto you.
_________________
Important: Please send messages about FWNITRO to the public forum, not privately to me.
#117276 - Lynx - Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:38 am
If we didn't have patents, companies wouldn't spend millions of dallars doing research.
There is nothing wrong with patents, liscenses, trademarks, etc.. They just need to have decent processes to keep them from getting to the point they are at. So, complain about the processes (or lack of) and not the laws.
We need them for new products to be created.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#117284 - tepples - Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:22 am
| Lynx wrote: |
| There is nothing wrong with patents, liscenses, trademarks, etc.. They just need to have decent processes to keep them from getting to the point they are at. So, complain about the processes (or lack of) and not the laws. |
That, or complain that the laws discourage the creation and maintenance of decent processes.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#117295 - Optihut - Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:09 pm
Here is my take on patens, copyright and such things: On the one hand it is necessary to get companies to do research, as Lynx said. On the other hand it opens up the doors for people to think "What can we theorize about without ever having the intention to produce something, so that we can sue someone, who actually comes up with a functioning design of this."
Patents do have a lifetime, so that they don't create indefinite monopolies, but eventually help out everybody.
A balance needs to be found that protects companies' investments and also gets rid of the leeches. Personally I liked the old system where the patent needs to have an inventive step. One click buying doesn't really have that in my layman's opinion and therefore shouldn't be patentable. Also, I would reduce the duration of copyright to the same duration of patents, namely 20 years. The duration of software patents should be significantly lower, as the generation change occurs earlier. A number that was discussed before was 5 years and I agree with that.
Perhaps there could even be a rule that 10 years after publishing a commercial program the source code of that program has to be opened.
Last edited by Optihut on Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
#117305 - Lynx - Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:53 pm
| Quote: |
| Perhaps there could even be a rule that after 10 years of publishing a commercial program the source code has to be opened. |
Then you'd have no "commercial" programs, as companies would be getting sued for stealing code.. Right now, a closed source program can have all the stolen source it wants. Once it's source was released, people would see it.
You know the people giving patents are like 80 years old and have probably never even touched a computer. Good thing they have secretaries or we'd have to go to an office to search through all the paperwork.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#117306 - Optihut - Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:25 pm
| Lynx wrote: |
| Then you'd have no "commercial" programs, as companies would be getting sued for stealing code.. Right now, a closed source program can have all the stolen source it wants. Once it's source was released, people would see it. |
Just out of curiosity, how common is it for companies to actually steal other people's code? I would think it's a rare occurrence, but perhaps I am being too optimistic.
#117307 - keldon - Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:37 pm
Didn't Apple take Microsoft to court over copying their code in the early Windows before Microsoft bought them out?
#117311 - ABigSmall - Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:01 pm
Are you saying that Microsoft owns Apple? Hehe, certainly not.
Wikipedia lists two lawsuits launched by Apple against Microsoft, one in 1988 and one in 1995.
Check "Apple v. Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard" and "Apple v. Microsoft, Intel, and San Francisco Canyon Company"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_lawsuits
#117315 - tepples - Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:06 pm
| keldon wrote: |
| Didn't Apple take Microsoft to court over copying their code in the early Windows before Microsoft bought them out? |
That was over copying elements of the user interface. Nowadays, the precedent in US case law (Lotus v. Borland) is that user interface elements are generally "functional" and not very copyrightable, leading to the use of patents and design patents instead.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#117536 - Lynx - Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:06 pm
That and if I remember correct, Apple borrowed the interface from Xerox anyway.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews