Act Now To Sidestep A W3C Patent Pitfall 210
Here is what the Free Software Foundation says on its front page about this bug:
"The W3C 'Royalty-Free' patent policy proposal does not protect the rights of the Free Software community to full participation in the implementation and extension of web standards. Please read more on this issue and send a comment to the W3C."
Part of the effort that moved the W3C to its present position was a furious outpouring of comments in opposition to the original proposal of the Englobulators:
- www.w3.org/2001/ppwg
- www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response
- lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment
- lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/thread.html
The fix needed right now is a small fix. But the W3C must again be reminded with what jealous vigor we guard our right to build our Web the way we have built it down to this day, using free software. The bug appears in Item 3 of Section 3, titled 'W3C Royalty-Free (RF) Licensing Requirements,' of the present proposal.
This Item allows for a supposedly free grant to use a patent to be so restricted that a piece of Web infrastructure software might be encumbered if used for some non-Web use. Since the GPL does not allow such encumbrancing, GPL-ed Web software re-purposed for non-Web use could not be legally freely redistributed. Please read the Free Software Foundation's page on this bug.
Here is the official Last Call for Comments.
If you write a comment in your own words, for repair of the bug, it will help. I shall write in, and I shall argue against adoption of the buggy sub-section. I shall also suggest an extension of the deadline for comments.
Let me get this straight... (Score:2, Interesting)
If the FSF wants all software free, great! But, let's not waste everyone's time fighting in the wrong forums.
Re:GPL is the bug. (Score:2, Interesting)
GPL-ing the standards document doesn't "infect" software that implements what that document describes unless you cut & paste the text of the document verbatim into that software's source code. (And, NO, saying something like, "/* This next bit of code implements part 3 of the whatsihoosit compliance document */" doesn't count as "including" that document in the code.
Oy Slashdot! (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering you intentionally block the W3C validator [w3.org]
I can't help but think that's about the stupidest thing /. has ever done (though I may be wrong). I mean, what's the point? Lame jokes about the crappy output of your Perl scripts got you down? How about fixing it instead??
Re:GPL is the bug. (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate being Mr-RMS-protector and GPL-Anti-Basher, but the amount of bad "information" and people throwing completely unrelated things around infuriates me.
As some others have tried to say, this has nothing to do with the GPL putting the idea in some sort of "forced distribution" form as the author of the original comment would have you believe.
The GPL doesn't put restrictions on the distribution of ideas, only their implementations.
Here's an analogy as I see it:
Say I'd patented the idea of drawing pictures on a computer screen, and up until now the web (and computers in general) were only text base. Yes I'm stretching, but go with me for a second. I want to put pictures in a W3C standard, but I don't want to give up my right to charge money for my one-handed picture-viewing slideshow program. I submit it to the W3C standard and say "It's okay for people to use my patented idea for free for web applications." Now someone goes and makes a graphics-enabled web browser and distributes it under the GPL. Someone else then takes that GPL code and turns it into a GPL'd one-handed slideshow program -- a right the GPL affords them. Suddenly they are in violation of my patent. But the original author of the graphical web browser didn't break my patent, and the person who modified it into the slideshow program didn't disobey the license on the web browser..
And that's the problem being addressed as I see it. Note how it has nothing to do with the GPL "virally infecting" the patented idea?
Next time, read the article (and perhaps the GPL) before getting on your little pedastal. Thank you, please drive thru.
Jay Sulzberger is the one on the right with the be (Score:3, Interesting)
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLin
Better yet.... (Score:1, Interesting)
In Canada, software is not patentable unless it has a specific application as part of and inherit to a mechanical system. For example, the software that controls a factory robot can be patented, but only as part of the complete robot system. This is a common sense approach to software patents, in my opinion.
The other problem with software patents is the modular nature of many programming languages. It will get to the point that programming will be very difficult as patents will cover any eventuality that a program could produce and call it a "technology".
Offtopic?? What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is someone moderating posts at random here?
Re:Rationale for NOT submitting a comment: (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruce
Making a stink with the government (Score:4, Interesting)
I could write more, but you get the picture.
Bruce
Re:Making a stink with the government (Score:2, Interesting)
Not to get too far off topic here, but I think that there are two key points here to consider:
I think your main claim is correct though -- these problems arise from the status of the W3C, and if a body with some more pull (like a branch of the government) were to step in, these problems could be cleared up.
Regards,
FM
More coherent comments (Score:3, Interesting)
To All Members of the Free Software and Open Source Community,
For the past two years, I've been working on the W3C patent policy on
your behalf, to make it safe for Free Software to implement W3C standards.
Now, I'm worried that we could lose that fight, not because of the patent
holders, but because of our own community.
There's a long discussion below. I'm asking you to do something once you
read that discussion: Please write to
and tell them something like this (please elaborate - everyone discounts
rubber-stamp comments):
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Subject: Approve of draft policy - disapprove of software patenting.
I request that W3C approve the draft patent policy, because it's a
compromise that protects the right of Open Source / Free Software
programmers to implement W3C standards.
And you may want to add this:
I object to software patents, and support efforts to eliminate them
at the legislative level.
Now, to the discussion.
Three representatives of the Free Software / Open Source community:
myself, Larry Rosen of the Open Source Initiative, and Eben Moglen of
the Free Software Foundation, worked on the W3C patent policy for two
years. We spent between 1/8 and 1/4 of our time on the project for all
of that time, participating in many face-to-face meetings and conference
calls. Across the table were some companies that, I feel, wanted to
"farm" their own patents in W3C standards and would have erected
lucrative "toll-booths" to collect royalties from every implementor of
web standards. If they had their way, we would have been locked
out.
We got you the best deal we could get. It's not everything we want,
and it can't be. The draft policy is at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-20
The proposed W3C patent policy grants a royalty-free right for everyone
to practice patents that are embedded in the standard by W3C members who
own those patents. It prevents "patent farming", the biggest problem
that faced us. The problem is that the patent grant is limited - it only
applies to code that actually implements the standard. This is called a
"field-of-use" limitation. The problem this creates for the Free Software
community is that other uses of the same patent in our code, for anything
but implementing the standard, could be covered by royalties.
I object to software patents entirely, and many of you do as well. Why,
then, did I (on your behalf) approve of a policy containing that
limitation, and why am I asking you to support it?
The answer is simple. Patent holders won't continue their membership
in W3C if that membership forces them to give up their patent rights
for non-standards-related applications. They will instead move their
standards-making activities to other organizations that allow them to
charge patent royalties on the standards. And we will have lost.
It comes down to what we can compel people to do, and what they won't
stand for. The patent holders want the W3C brand on their standards,
and will give up something for that. If we ask them to give up more,
they'll do without the W3C brand, and we have no way to control what
standards organization they move to. If we wish to fight software patents
outside of standards, I think our only choice is to do so at the legislative
level.
The field-of-use limitation presents special problems regarding the GPL,
because the GPL disallows a field-of-use-limited patent license. There is a
work-around for this. The code that makes use of the patented principle
must be under the MIT license, which allows a scope-limited patent
license. That may be linked into GPL code and distributed. I'm less than
comfortable with this, but my discomfort arises from the basic injustice
of software patents. A work-around is the best we can do in this case.
FSF, by its tenets, was bound to protest the field-of-use-limitation.
I respect that protest, as it is rooted an a belief that I share - that
software patents are fundamentally wrong. However, if the Free Software
Open Source community comes out against the W3C patent policy, and the
patent holders who want unlimited rights to charge royalties come out
against it, just who will speak for it? The result will be that W3C
will fail to give final approval to the policy, and we will not even have
the limited protection from software patents that we've won. Thus, I
have to ask you _not_ to do what FSF asks this time. Of course, this
disagreement does not diminish my respect of FSF, and I will continue
to work with them as I have on many projects for years.
Thus, I'd like you to write that email now. It's very important that W3C
see support for the draft policy, or we'll be back to the old, bad policy
again. Thanks!
As always, please feel free to call me to discuss this at 510-526-1165
(California time) or write me at bruce@perens.com
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:2, Interesting)
The topic at hand has to do with intelelectual property, in the specific domain software.
The roots of the web were formed at several universities, since its inception the web has relied on open standards. Open standards allow different venders/individuals to create their own implementation of the standard. This has allowed the widespread acceptance of the standard. The primary example of this is TCP/IP, it was created to allow various processes to communicate accrost various platforms. Today there are few operating systems that do not have their own implementation of TCP/IP. TCP/IP has been hand and hand with the web since its inception. HTTP the standard for hypertext transfer is also an open standard, and as TCP/IP was widley accepted so was HTTP.
Proprietary standards however are of the specific property of the IP owner. Often the owner the IP imposes specific limits on how the technology can be used. This is usually accomplished by patenting the technology. The IP owner can then license the technology and gain a profit stream from use of the technology. Propriety techonology however does not gain wide acceptance.
I do understand that patents are usefull in protecting IP owners from unfair competition, and idea theft. The current conflict at hand is one the unresolved issues from the commercialization of the web. The web having its roots in acadamia, was created with the idea that knowledge should be given to whoever may seek it, this contrast with the idea of proprietary technology, which seeks to gain profit from their knowledge. However this is not the issue. The issue is should we use proprietary technology in a open standard, given that the IP owner is the controller of that technology. I think we should keep all web standards free, the growth of the web is the all the proof we should need. It proofs that information is more valueble if shared. Patents that should be included in the web standard should liceneced freely to anyone who wishes.
Whole papers have been written on the topic of intelectual property rights, this however is just a brief summary on my views.
Please reply to this comment, I would like anyone to point out any obvoise errors in this text.
My email APPROVING of the proposal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:case for change (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand your concern, and agree with it, but that isn't the battle being fought here.
Here's the abstract for the "Royalty-Free Patent Policy" (note the name change from simply "Patent Policy"):
"Abstract:
The W3C Royalty-Free Patent Policy governs the handling of patents in the process of producing Web standards. The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a royalty-free basis."
The policy manages what it sets out to do. Specifically allowing GPL or allowing the use of a patented technique outside in something other than a web application (both worth striving for) are not within the scope of this document.
There is certainly room to urge the W3C Patent Policy Working Group to draft a policy that says web standards should not be contrained by potentially restrictive patents. Such a draft would effectively obsolete this policy, but in the meantime, this policy is useful for what it does.
Consider this a mark along the way toward a more difficult goal. This represents progress. We can agree it is not enough progress, that there is still another important mark to reach, but it is still worth having.