[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Fsfe-france] "False" Open source Representative Tells EU Patents OK
From: |
pplf |
Subject: |
[Fsfe-france] "False" Open source Representative Tells EU Patents OK |
Date: |
Tue, 06 May 2003 16:30:12 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr-FR; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312) |
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/05/06/129206.shtml?tid=99&tid=155
http://perens.com/Articles/Taylor/
///////////////////
Contact:
Bruce Perens
(US) 510-526-1165
bruce @ perens.com
ALERT
5-May-2003
You may re-publish this message or excerpts of it.
FALSE OPEN SOURCE REPRESENTATIVE CALLS FOR EUROPEAN SOFTWARE PATENTS
A false or misled "open source representative" has signed an industry
resolution calling for the EU to allow software patenting, which has
been sent to members of the European Parliament. Copies of the
resolution are here and here . The European Legal Affairs Committee
holds a plenary vote on software patenting this Wednesday, and may have
been influenced by the false representation.
Graham Taylor is director of Open Forum Europe, an organization that is
purported to work for broader acceptance of Open Source. Taylor has
appeared at various trade shows in Europe, saying reasonable things
about Open Source, for the past year. Open Forum Europe is a division of
IT Forum Foundation and InterForum. InterForum's membership includes a
number of large companies that have a vested interest in the promotion
of software patenting in Europe. Mr. Taylor's sponsor organization is
well connected with the EU government.
I would encourage Mr. Taylor to evangelize Open Source software,
something he's done successfully for a while. However, he does not have
the credentials to represent the Linux, Open Source and Free Software
developer communities, especially when he contradicts our extremely
strong opposition to software patenting. While Mr. Taylor has been
visible as a public speaker, it does not appear that he has any
engagement with Open Source projects and developers, or that he brought
this matter up with representative organizations such as the Free
Software Foundation, the Open Source Initiative, and Software in the
Public Interest. No legitimate Open Source representative would think of
taking this sort of position with government without first holding a
public consultation with the developer community.
Software patents could be fatal for Open Source software in the U.S. and
Europe. Since we do not collect royalties from the distribution of our
own software, we have no funds to pay royalties to patent holders.
Rather than sue us to collect money, expect patent holders to sue Open
Source developers to restrain them from distributing their software or
carrying out further development. Companies that produce proprietary
software would bring that sort of suit to kill us off as a competitor.
While we can sometimes work around a patented algorithm that we know
about, the Open Source developer is not able to defend himself from
patent infringement claims, even invalid ones. In the U.S., the cost of
a patent infringement defense often exceeds US$500,000. Because he can't
sustain the cost of his own defense, the Open Source developer will be
compelled to settle with his accuser, regardless of the merits of the
case, in order to preserve what assets the plaintiff deigns to leave
him. The copyrights of his own software won't be among those assets.
We are especially threatened by royalty-bearing software patents that
are embedded in industry standards. In many cases, it is impossible to
achieve compliance with a standard without infringing upon the patented
algorithms that are specified by that standard. Standard compliance is
critical for interoperability, and thus software patents in standards
can make an un-communicating island of a Linux system. For example, the
IEEE 1394 FireWire standard is encumbered by patents that apply to the
software interfacing to it, and a patent royalty pool is operated in
connection with that standard. Linux implementations of FireWire are
potentially infringing, and prosecution could result in our software
becoming legally unable to access FireWire devices.
We can not expect our industrial partners, such as IBM and HP, to help
with patent defense or with the matter of software patenting in general.
While those companies are often our friends, their interests also come
into conflict with ours. Some of them use software patents to generate
revenue or provide monopolies for their businesses. Thus, IBM has been
calling for increases in software patentability, despite the fact that
this is contrary to IBM's involvement in Open Source.
We also can't expect those companies to go against their own business
partners in our defense. In 2002, Microsoft informed its business
partners of its plans to bring patent infringement lawsuits against Open
Source projects, an intention that it had made public as far back as
2001, in an appearance by Microsoft V.P. Craig Mundie at an Open Source
conference. Microsoft is probably holding off enforcement until the
question of European software patentability is settled, lest they
dissuade Europeans from allowing software patenting. Last year, HP
signed a "non-aggression pact" with Microsoft that may prevent them from
assisting us in the future. It's unknown whether IBM would be interested
in opposing Microsoft to protect an Open Source project or an individual
Open Source developer.
One problem we have in holding off software patents is that we have
little damage to show so far. Although at least one company has made its
plans clear, there has been little prosecution of Open Source developers
for patent infringement to date. My surmise is that anyone who has a
patent to prosecute will hold off until the European software patent
decision is made. They wouldn't want to provide evidence against the
very laws they are seeking.
Thus, software patents present a tremendous threat to Open Source,
perhaps a fatal one once Europe joins the U.S. in broader software
patenting. Yet, the letter signed signed by Mr. Taylor proposes no real
protection for Open Source, only that the government monitor for damage
and publish reports.
In correcting the actions of Mr. Taylor, I should explain who I am and
what right I have to represent Linux and Open Source developers.
I have been a speaker for the community of Open Source developers and
programmers since 1993. I am co-founder and elected director of Software
in the Public Interest, Inc., a tax-exempt non-profit organization that
supports a number of prestigious Free Software projects. SPI's members
are individuals, most of them authors of software that they have
contributed under an Open Source license. I am the creator of the Open
Source Definition, the manifesto of the Open Source movement in
software. I contributed my first Free Software in 1987, and have been a
major Linux developer since 1993. Free Software that I've written is in
widespread commercial use and has flown on the Space Shuttle. You can
see my resume here.
I generally act on consensus of a larger group of leaders including
members of the Open Source Initiative, Software in the Public Interest,
the Free Software Foundation, and various software projects. I have
issued this alert individually because it regards a government decision
less than two days away, but will consult those organizations regarding
how to proceed.
In writing this alert I am relying on information provided by
* Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance
* Bernard Lang
* Francois PELLEGRINI
You can reach me vie email to bruce @ perens.com or phone 510-526-1165
(US Pacific time zone).
Bruce Perens
///////////////////
--
pplf - French OpenPGP page <address@hidden>
"OpenPGP en francais" PGP: 8263 8399 2074 5277 a6d3
http://www.openpgp.fr.st 622d 1b66 ea3d caa0 8c94
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [Fsfe-france] "False" Open source Representative Tells EU Patents OK,
pplf <=