European Parliament To Exclude Free Software With FRAND 219
First time submitter jan.van.gent writes "The European Parliament is on the verge of adopting a directive reforming standards, reform which would introduce FRAND patent licensing terms, an undefined term which has been seen as a direct attack on the fundamental principles of Free and Open Source software. The Business Software Alliance has been very active trying to get FRAND terms into the directive."
Re:One solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds kind of like what Microsoft did to Mosaic - we'll give you 10% of our IE revenue! I can see companies being tricksy about it, say, giving the FRAND part away for "free" to avoid paying royalties, but licensing the rest of the program for a fee.
In my perfect little world, software wouldn't be patentable, and we wouldn't have this problem.
Re:Trying to figure out who the good guys are (Score:5, Insightful)
The FSF's objection is precisely right. The standard of "reasonable" often used by government agencies and standards bodies is badly outdated, and based on a model ("all software written by commercial entities") that doesn't reflect the real world anymore. Standards are supposed to be for everybody's benefit, not just that of large corporations.
However making such changes is difficult (these bodies do not move quickly)—so if they're making the effort to update things, they should do it right, not just following the dictates of whatever lobby happens to be shoveling the most money at them.
Re:One solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
With no revenue, FOSS could freely use and distribute such patented software
Except that part of the freedom that comes with free software is the freedom to sell that software.
What is so unfair about "fair?" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One solution... (Score:3, Insightful)
...and if you're selling it, what's wrong with paying some royalties? There's free, as in libre, which is what you're talking about, and having associated costs doesn't affect that. Then there's free, as in beer, and having a royalty of x% of revenue doesn't affect that. It's only when you want to have your cake, and eat it, too, that there's a problem.
Re:One solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is so unfair about "fair?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trying to figure out who the good guys are (Score:4, Insightful)
Making such changes is easy. You just replace a few words here and there in the law and you're done.
The real problem is that the business interests would rather have a vaguely worded law that they can fight over in court,
instead of a reasoned discussion in public where people might have the opportunity to disagree with them in a meaningful way.
Re:Trying to figure out who the good guys are (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Trying to figure out who the good guys are (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fair and reasonable" means priced high enough that only big companies can afford it.
Re:Trying to figure out who the good guys are (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that "fair and reasonable" completely locks out all free software. This is not about ideology, the two concepts are mutually exclusive. A "reasonable" price between two giant corporations is too expensive for free software (and most small businesses). Can you afford to write free software when the reasonable license for a patent is in 5 digit figures?
Re:One solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not totally against software patents. They are overused though. However my bigger concern is with standards tied to patents. That concept is utterly ridiculous. A standard that you must pay for to comply with? That defeats the entire purpose of having a standard, instead it is more like those pseudo-standards created by trade organizations (guilds, cabals, etc).
Comment removed (Score:1, Insightful)
Changing laws is not easy (Score:4, Insightful)
Making such changes is easy. You just replace a few words here and there in the law and you're done.
Email is still governed by the stored communications act (from the 1980s, IIRC). The FCC regulates interstate communications using laws from 1996, and those are the RECENT ones that are relevant. (common carrier laws are still based on common-law history going back to the 1800s).
It is rarely, if ever, easy to change law.
Re:One solution... (Score:2, Insightful)
A great many master artists learned their techniques through rote copying of previous artists. learning and imitation is going to happen. Its not bad.
Re:One solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does it matter? Just because an alternative isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not better. How often have software patents prevented reverse engineering? Does anyone even care anymore? Oh god, if I reverse engineer I'll get sued but if I try to make my own independent version I'll get sued as well. How many frivolous patent lawsuits are happening every single second? How much innovation is stiffed because anything you do is under fifty potential patents backed by a mountain of well paid lawyers?
You know what prevents reverse engineering? The cost of doing so successfully and the delay during which you get to exploit the market.
Re:One solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
> Without patents the SW industry would collapse
How ever did it function in the dark years *before* software patents, then?
Re:Trying to figure out who the good guys are (Score:5, Insightful)
..and the GPLv3 was created just to prevent such end-run-arounds like 'tivoization.' what's the use of open source software when it's run with signed kernels/systems that keep the user it's supposed to empower out of the hardware?
Mozilla is funded by google. if anything they are a counterexample to your 'zomg have to pay the programmers right?' false dilemma.
Re:Trying to figure out who the good guys are (Score:4, Insightful)
one other thing, closed licenses are also 'ideological' in the sense they enforce particular expectations on users (you must pay for this, zomg pay my kids yale tuition, etc) which produce a world view on how they can empower themselves with the software.
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
FSF: No! Keep business dick out of the public's ass!
Euros: What if it's just half a dick. That's reasonable as a compromise, right? right?
Seriously. Someone making an outlandish and outright wrong demand isn't grounds for compromise, it's grounds for rejection.
Re:One solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
Good luck with that. One patent stunted steam engine [techdirt.com] research for years. A patent pool on sewing machines [techdirt.com] stopped any improvement in the art for 14 years.
Those were before the modern, "rounded rectangles" state of patent trolling. I doubt it's possible to implement a non-trivial standard without stepping on someone's patents.
So, next best thing to pretending everyone else's patents don't exist is having everyone offer them up on FRAND terms.
the consumer doesn't chose - why should they pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Standards are chosen for the convenience of the producer of a patented service. I don't ask for H.264 video. I just want the content. If using a patent encumbered tech to deliver your goods makes business sense for you, then you should pay the royalty. But making the consumer pay a royalty again for the ability to consume is double charging, and doing so with monopoly restricted choices. If ATT wants to use GSM cell towers, fine. But why should the handset user pay a royalty to connect?
It's silly to claim that the harm to free software is negligible. The FOSS ecosystem can't work with royalty requirements. And most FOSS would go with patent free code if it were possible. But interoperability requires implementing standards. That's not a choice.
Re:One solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a backwards question. Why *should* you be entitled for royalties from the work of others that took your idea and ran with it? There are billions of examples of non-protected ideas that people expand upon and make new stuff without entanglements. (Storywriting, architectural tropes, marketing styles, etc.)
The only reason you even think in ways that can word the question you raised is because the very notion of public domain has been beaten out of the public consciousness, and that's a grim state to be in.