[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive]
 
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Skåne Sjælland Linux User Group - http://www.sslug.dk Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Forum   Calendar   Search
MhonArc Date: [Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next]   Thread: [Date Prev] [Thread Index] [Date Next]   MhonArc
 

Re: [ITPOLITIK] Open Source i den offentlige forvaltning?



On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:19:26 +0200
Erik Josefsson <sslug@sslug> wrote:

> > Der er da masser af politiske visioner.
> 
> Hvilke politiker har dem og udtaler dem?

Her er nogle kloge ord fra Xavi:


Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:20:03 +0200
From: Xavi Drudis Ferran <sslug@sslug>
To: Russell McOrmond <sslug@sslug>
Cc: Richard Stallman <sslug@sslug>,
sslug@sslug,
sslug@sslug,
sslug@sslug, Patent forum
<sslug@sslug>, sslug@sslug,
sslug@sslug, sslug@sslug,
sslug@sslug Subject: Re: [Patents] Re: IBM, Microsoft, BEA Snub
W3C

El Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:54:19PM -0400, Russell McOrmond deia:
> (I received this on sslug@sslug, and suspect that only that forum
> will receive my reply given I am not a member of the others)
> 
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> > I wonder if what we are seeing is an attempt to create a
> > patent-restricted standard.  If so, perhaps public pressure
> > is called for now.
> 

I'm sorry if I'm too Europe centric, but I beg to differ.
As long as corporates want to have patent encumbered so called
"standards" they're going to find or build organisations to sanction
them, and we won't be able to stop them by boicotting or mail bombing
them. We got some relief in W3C just to find corporates going elsewhere,
specially to more opaque forums. It can go on until "standards" are
developed in an absolute secretive way between oligopolists. It is very
important to have W3C able to develop real standards in an open way, but
we won't be able to stop all organisations from allowing RAND.

Public pressure should concentrate in legislators anywhere where there 
is a bit of democracy left and software patents are legal or may become
legal. Of course RMS is already doing it, but I believe people should be
encouraged to demand from their legislators that they don't allow such a
destruction of a creative culture and needed business as software. 

Protesting against those who have economical interest in destroying
their market (by monopolising it) and no obligation to listen to
protesters is wasting time compared with protesting to elected
legislators and publicizing the issues.

>   It should be remembered that this is not the only standard that is
>   part
> of OASIS, with the Open Office technical committee being very
> important to our community. 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office
> 
>   We need to look at this not as a single standard that may become an
> issue, but try to bring whatever pressure we can onto all software
> standards bodies to not accept royalty-bearing or "field of use"
> restricted patented methods.
> 

An important note, yes. But again, this proves that pressure should go
to governemnts, not unaccountable standard bodies. Does anyone knoe why
OASIS was chosen?. Maybe we do need some more open standard bodies, if
the W3C is too web-centric, but we can't hope to avoid RAND bodies.

>   I tried to have a conversation with an IBM person at a recent
>   government
> conference that featured some FLOSS presentations(*), and he simply
> didn't get it. There is a misconception that patents can not be used
> defensively against other patents if they are RF licensed, and this
> misconception needs to be cleared up.  Anyone wanting to use RAND (or
> worse) licensing are doing so because they want to use them for
> offensive purposes, not defensive purposes, and this fact needs to be
> made clear.
> 

Well, a patent is not much better just because you use it defensively:
a- it can be used offensively later when budgets go low or anything
b- defensive use means barriers to entry for those who can't afford the
defense

>   While what Microsoft is doing with software patents makes sense
>   given
> their clear dependency on legacy business models, what IBM is doing is
> sitting on the fence by both supporting Free Software (such as Linux)
> and opposing Free Software (via RAND software patents) at the same
> time.  I often surprise customers when I recommend against purchases
> from IBM until I explain IBM's position on software patents.
> 

I don't know what their plans are, and I've heard someone from IBM 
who also seemed not to know (although he pretended to know). But I'm
starting to doubt they are not aware of the contradiction. Any
explanation I imagine sounds like conspiracy theory or something (let's
overthrow MS by flocking with everyone else and joining efforts in free
software while we retain control of the whole lot of software by
software patents, that we will be able to use once we don't depend in MS
to become the new monopolist, this time enforced by the states' patent
laws), so I don't have a plausible explanation. Note that there's an IBM
free license which seems to prevent that scenario, so who knows?




-- 
Xavi Drudis Ferran
sslug@sslug


 
Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Index   Calendar   Search

 
 
Questions about the web-pages to <www_admin>. Last modified 2005-08-10, 20:20 CEST [an error occurred while processing this directive]
This page is maintained by [an error occurred while processing this directive]MHonArc [an error occurred while processing this directive] # [an error occurred while processing this directive] *