Slashdot Log In
Act Now To Sidestep A W3C Patent Pitfall
from the this-is-not-the-santa-clause dept.
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:Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Informative)
If the patent owners don't want to release their IP, then the patented technology shouldn't be part of the standard. Period.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't it suck to have to pay out royalties for technologies like SOAP because HTTP had patent encumberences that were only ignorable when dealing with the web?
The Internet is not the Interweb, and though the W3C is a "web" pseudo-standards body, they need to realize that their recommendations tend to extend well beyond the web and need to plan accordingly. A standard that's deliberately crippled so as not to be extensible is generally a bad standard.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, web software which uses patented techniques simply can't be free software; its code cannot be redistributed without restriction. I think the thing the FSF is most afraid of is that people will implement patented techniques in GPLed web software and Not Worry About It. That would be bad. One scenario I can imagine is this: A developer sues a GNU/Linux vendor for royalties on his patent-encumbered web software, because the GPL can't be applied to patent-encumbered software, and hence the vendor is redistributing it without a license. Technically, the developer is correct.
It seems you don't care much whether free software is available; fair enough. I like having free software, though, and so the situation where (a) technology X is a widely-used standard (web or otherwise), and (b) it is illegal to write free software which implements technology X, seems as odious to me as it does to the FSF.
Badly needed background... (Score:3, Informative)
Also of note:
Working Draft, W3C Patent Policy [w3.org]...
Abstract:
Rationale for NOT submitting a comment: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Isn't this an example of putting the cart before the horse? Free Software is great and all, but true freedom comes from not handing control of everything to one faction... something I would think would be obvious to other supporters of open source software. A monopoly over the Internet is just as bad in the hands of OSS developers as it would be in the hands of Microsoft.
How is that insightful? (Score:4, Insightful)
>as bad in the hands of OSS developers
>as it would be in the hands of Microsoft.
How? Tell me how that would be worse... If OSS dominated the web, you would be able to use any OS to access the web, and not have to pay for it. People would be able to not worry about strange patent limitations and being sued for single-click patents. The GPL places no restrictions on content created on the web, so anything on the web would be on the web in such a scenario. Any company that wanted to make a closed source application would not be prohibited, or secretly (or blatently, as the case may be) shut out of the standards committee.
So tell me how the web would be worse if it were dominated by the OSS instead of MS. Or shut up.
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
2001 Oct thread link (Score:5, Funny)
And those are taken from just the top 22 posts in the list...
WWW and the GNU GPL (Score:1, Troll)
It's interesting to think that Tim Berners-Lee at one time was pushing CERN to release all of the code for the World Wide Web (like http and html) under the GPL. He explains in Weaving the Web [w3.org] that some of the vendors seeking to capitalize on the Web (like Netscape) were concerned about the viral nature of the GPL. How much different would the web (and the world) be if the Web were part of the GNU project instead of in public domain? (I realize that releasing under GPL does not make a project part of GNU, but if the Web were GPL'd, would anyone use it outside of GNU?)
I think GNU is great, but I'm really glad the Web is what it is.
Re:WWW and the GNU GPL (Score:5, Informative)
That is not quite right, we never relased any code under the GPL. We released the libwww code as public domain, it is not GPL, it is not BSD, it is public domain.
When GPL was being discussed it was in the context of 'make it free', the GPL was rejected because it did not make the cern code free in the ways we wanted it to be free. We explicitly wanted browsers to be included with computers as a cost free part of the basic operating system. Remember that at the time (91) Mosaic had not even appeared, let alone Netscape. The point is that Tim never wanted the viral aspect and dropped the GNU angle as soon as it was explained to him.
In the end the public domain route was in large part dictated by political expediency. Explaining GPL or BSD to cern management would have taken a lot more time and led to more opportunity for confusion. Putting the code in the public domain was something they could understand - it had already been done with much of the CERN libraries.
The mistake that was made was public domain rather than BSD. If we had gone BSD then Mosaic would have been required to state that it used CERN code (60% of the Mosaic code was code from CERN used without attribution). That in turn would have meant that IE would have a credit. As it was the mainstream media did not recognize Tim as the true father of the Web until about 1996, and then only as a result of a major PR campaign led by MIT.
I would certainly advise researchers to use the BSD license in their code. I would strongly advise against the GPL if you want your ideas to be taken up by industry.
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:Oy Slashdot! (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Re:Oy Slashdot! (Score:4, Informative)
Regarding W3C, if you think they are insensitive, try IETF's attitude on intellectual property. It mostly comes from these working groups consisting of employees of too many big companies. They are all cross-licensed with another, and don't give a hoot if their standards can't be implemented by any merely medium-sized enterprise.
But we fixed that at W3C. We got a compromise. The community isn't used to compromise.
Bruce
I think people didn't get it yet (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a detailed step-by-step example that shows how this problem could play out:
Programmer P downloads the Konqueror web browser, receiving it under terms of GPL.
P learns of a new web standard that requires exercising a technique for parsing URLs that is patented by Corporation C. C has licensed the patent under an RF, non-exclusive license, but with a "field of use" restriction that says the license can be used to "implement the standard". The standard, as it turns out, covers only what browsers must do with URLs, and says nothing about the server side or clients that aren't user browsers.
P implements this technique in Konqueror, and seeks to redistribute the modified version on his website so that other users can benefit from Konqueror now complying with the standard. If he does, he is bound by the GPL under copyright law, because he is redistributing a modified version.
However, he knows full well of a condition on that code that contradicts the GPL (violating Section 7) -- namely, he knows that C's patent license prohibits folks from taking his URL parsing code and putting it into, say, a search engine. Therefore, under GPL Section 7, he is prohibited from redistribution.
You might think that he can simply assign his copyright to the existing copyright holder of Konqueror let distribution happen from that source. They could distribute under GPL, but they would be granting a self-contradicting license. Nothing (to my knowledge, but IANAL) prohibits someone from distributing copyrighted works under licenses that make no sense and are self-contradictory. However, it is certainly true that those who receive distribution of the works are stuck and can't undertake further distribution or modification themselves.
The way I understand it is that it can create a weird situation. Suppose I write code to parse Yahoo pages to extract information from them. Suppose that Yahoo uses some technology licensed in this way on their site. Now they can stop me because it's not a web browser.
hmmmm,, (Score:1)
This would prevent any Open Source implementation (Score:2)
For example the Open Source Definiton says:
case for change (Score:3, Insightful)
The point he is trying to make, in my case, is that companies may, under the current policy, use the said clause to specifically sabotage a GPLed piece of software that is trying to implement a standard.
An example of this would be if a commercial corporation (call it company X) comes up with a new piece of technology (call it WWW++ for here), which instantly becomes a hit. So, there is a big push for WWW++ to become a web standard, and company X agrees that they have the write to us WWW++, but only in terms of web development. However, since this is incompatible with the GPL, what this would mean is that anything trying to implement WWW++ cannot be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, singlehandedly by making a popular web standard, a company can say that this web standard cannot be used under certain licenses. We all know companies which would like to do this.
What is being proposed instead, would take away that clause. It would not harm commercial implementations of the standard at all. In fact, commercial implementations would even benifit from the removal of the clause because it would give them more freedom of action. What the removal of the clause would do is ultimately give developers more freedom to work with the next generation web standards, to foster the kind of innovativeness on the part of the developers without having to constantly looking for patent violations, and to continue the tradition of the free web as much as possible.
It is not a small issue and not a bug (Score:5, Informative)
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.
The issue for me as an architect (I have written IETF, W3C and OASIS standards) is that I don't necessarily own all the IP that I need to address a problem. If I need to get an IP owner to donate their property for the common good my job is easiest if I have to ask for as little as is necessary for the particular purpose.
Equally when I hold the IP I see little point in giving away more than I need to for the purpose of the Web specification even though my company does not regard patent licensing as a revenue stream. The point is that I might need some IP held by a party that deals in the non-Internet world. I will have an easier time negotiating a license for Internet use if I have some bargaining chips.
The FSF reading on the situation is 100% about their ideology and has nothing to do with real needs as far as I am concerned. Open Source software is not imune to the patent system. If you modify any open source software sufficiently you will run into a patent infringement.
If you apply the FSF "logic" you would have to stop distributing gzip because someone could modify it so that it infringed the Unisys LZ patents.
The W3C does not have a monopoly on standards making and in fact is already seeing a lot of the standards work migrating from to OASIS. Dealing with the cumbersome W3C process and formatting conventions is bad enough without additional IP roadblocks being errected.
At the end of the day the IP policy is utterly irrelevant since nobody is going to use the specification unless the IP terms are acceptable and they are going to determine what is acceptable, not Tim and certainly not RMS. To date that has generally meant 'free as in beer' however there are many applications where that is simply not achievable, if you want to do voice browsing you will run into IP issues and your choice will be do something encumbered or don't do it at all.
Don't do it at all may be the FSF answer, but he does not pay $57,500 a year for W3C membership dues. The point that Tim has missed is that the W3C membership is already annoyed on the value for money front, W3C is way more expensive to join than OASIS where we pay $10K. We are also far from happy on the bogus process front, it took me almost a year to get a W3C working group started. I am not happy with a set of document publication rules that are 'standards based' but turn out to mean that you can only edit standards with one editor.
The last thing W3C needs to do at this stage is to reopen the IP issue with the membership.
Jay, you're wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Nor does it make it impossible for GPL software to make use of the patents. If you want to use a patent in GPL software, put that routine under the MIT license, which does not have the GPL's language regarding patents, and can link with GPL work. This work-around was suggested by Eben Moglen.
This doesn't mean I support software patents. I think they should be eliminated. But we can't eliminate software patents through W3C - only through legislatures.
I'll end this with a plea to Jay Sulzberger. Jay, you are working to destroy two years of work by myself, Eben Moglen, and Larry Rosen. You didn't participate in the patent policy working group. I didn't see you volunteer. You don't sufficiently understand the issues yet. Please help us get the current W3C policy accepted, so that things will get better instead of worse.
Bruce
Re:It is not a small issue and not a bug (Score:4, Informative)
Bruce
Jay Sulzberger is the one on the right with the be (Score:3, Interesting)
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLin
What problem? (Score:2)
Even if it weren't that way, the worst case scenario is you'd need a different "free" license than the GPL for the code which was patent encumbered. Folks, the GPL is not holy doctrine. Its a convenient way to gift code with more of an ability to force your morals on the recipient than public domain offers. Its nothing more.
Confirmation link did not work (Score:1)
id not found
Error: There is no message with id: 2877460f8ecf5cee8edeaa43b3dd2b54b9a34a6a. Please make sure you have cut and pasted the URI correctly.
I am sure I am pasting it right... Go figure.
the GPL should be modified (Score:2)
W3C who? (Score:1)
Mozilla tries, but once MSIE hit 98% share is there really any point in trying to push standards compliance on the Borg?
The perfect Free software licence (Score:1)
--- START OF "WGAS" LICENSE ---
Section 1: Preamble
Who gives a shit?
Section 2: Definitions
Really, who gives a flying fuck?
Section 3: Scope and Limitations
I could give two shits what you do with this. Knock yourself out, chimpie.
Section 4: Warrantees and conflict resolution
Go fuck yourself.
---- END LICENSE ----
Can't comment due to bug in w3c message submit (Score:2)
I got back an automated response saying the message had been accepted, then a seperate message saying that I would have to visit here [w3.org] to give permission to post the message to the mailing list and store it. However, trying out that link gives me the message:
Error: There is no message with id: 3a9041e823e02419d0f7ddd1223cf918b8a3e226. Please make sure you have cut and pasted the URI correctly.
So, good luck to those trying to remove the offending wording if those opposed can't even submit persistent comments!
can't approve my comment! BROKEN MAILING LIST? (Score:2)
Currently, the last comment I see is three days old: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpoli cy-comment/2002Dec/ [w3.org]
I hope Slashdot's last-minute comments aren't headed into the bitbucket.
An Example in Plain English (Score:2)
From the FSF's Position on Proposed W3 Consortium "Royalty-Free" Patent Policy [fsf.org]:
This is all based on a bad assumption. (Score:2)
If the clause would lead to a situation where you can't release standard-compliant software under the GPL...
Don't use the GPL for the software.
Problem solved.
Am I the only one who thinks accomodating a particular software license is pretty low on the list of considerations when writing a standard?
The FSF "Everything must work with the GPL or else" is a very... Seatle Corporation perspective.
The W3C doesn't want patents either (Score:2, Informative)
So the question becomes, how do we survive, and how does the Web survive, and move forward, in a world with software patents?
Part of that involves negotiation with the large companies who hold the largest patent portfolios: it would be almost useless trying to publish a patent policy document if the holders of most of the patents didn't agree to it. So there are some pretty complex constraints.
Simply writing to say, software patents are bad, isn't going to help much. But if you have solid constructive ideas on how to change things, or on how to come to consensus and agreement both with GPL implementations of specifications and with the need that large organizations have stated they have, to keep patents for "deefensive use", I think that would be very helpful.
Of course, just writing to say you like the current draft patent policy, or that you want to see some specific change, or that you don't like it and why, is also helpful, although it does add work for W3C staff, who are obliged to reply to every comment!
If you really want to make a difference, write to your political representative - congressperson, member of european parliament, MP, etc. - and say that software patents are bad for business, are bad for research, are bad for the future of the world, and will cause Orcs to attack Helm's Deep.
Well, maybe Helm's Deep isn't about patents, and not everyone agrees patents (or orcs!) are bad, But if you want software patents to go away you need to be heard. The DMCA had approx. 300 public comments; writing really does make a difference.
Disclaimer: I am XML Activity Lead at W3C.
Jealous vigor? (Score:2)
Have a great new year, Tim!
In Soviet Russia (Score:1)
Who cares? (Score:2)
I don't care what w3c does and the sooner they shoot themselves in the foot (or head) in order to suck up to any sort of funding they can find, the sooner the real world will totally ignore them and I can stop explaining to comsci newbies why these people are doing evil but ignorable things.
NOT WORKING (Score:1)
JESUS! just how fucking irrelevant do you want to be damn it! Really, I dont see any diference between W3C being actually irrelvant for not complying with corporate needs (should they decide to not pass their stupid idea), and the W3C becomming a fucking little ass puppet of the Masters At Redmond.....because its so fucking obvious!!! Christ!
Cant you see? You cannot provide a level playing field in a market if you limit yourself to the porposed use of a standard. When you make a standard you pretty much have no fucking idea what the developers (companies, free software geeks...etc) are going to do with it. How the HELL do you expect to contribute to a level playing field when you limit the basic freedom of non-patent-holding competitors to take the standard out of what your (itsy-bitsy-infinitesimal-single neuron-standard making) pseudobrain "THINKS" is the realm of the standard.
Thats not only cocky but plain stupid and what makes it so obvious that, as a standard body, you are just another betha testing team from Redmond.
That, and the fact that, today, when slashdot crew is adviced of your evil, you take down the lists.
(I can see the fucking appology now....we had a little glitch in our linux-based mailing list manager....w3c will change to an exchange based list manager from now on so we can have both the superior standards compliant technology and the incredible looks of MS tatooed on our ass)
Assholes.
-----
Yeah, im angry....
-----
Lots of good comments - send them in (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe the best thing to do is..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Standards are what the majority agree upon, not what some committee decides the majority should be forced to use.
The only power they have is what people give them.
If they screw up........ Then thyey aren't the standard....
What the backup plan? In case they do sell out..
Not worth rejecting W3C - write to support them! (Score:2)
It seems to me, however, that Bruce Perens, in the many posts you see above, is right. That is, these standards are as good as it gets.
So -- write saying you support them, to counterbalance all the previous trigger-happy or (IMO) zealous individuals.
patents have no place in a standard (Score:2)
The current proposal offers to admit patented techniques into the
W3 standards if a special grant is made allowing the technique
to be used with the web.
This is wrong-headed for two reasons.
First, it would not be fair to a patent holder if the W3C, in the
future, extended the definition of "web infrastructure" to include
new technologies and techniques which may not now be considered
part of the web infrastructure. The W3C therefore would not be
allowed to extend and build on the current standards in the future.
It is crucial that the W3C be permitted to build on its current
standards, and so this barrier to innovation and progress must
be cast aside. Thus there is an unresolvable conflict between
the interests of the patent holder and the future interests of
the web community, and as a result, patent restricted techniques
have no place in the standards of the W3C.
Second, it limits the development of web infrastructure. For it
is by outside innovation and creativity that the infrastructure
of the web has been constructed: much of it passed to the W3C
from outside hands. Successful and innovative techniques have
been widely adopted and subsequently standardized. Almost all
of the core standards of the W3C were derived thus.
By limiting development to approved "web infrastructures" only
this leading edge of creativity will be blunted: no innovation
will occur ahead of the standards curve, for that work shall
be considered not a part of the "web infrastructure" and
therefore subject to the restrictive patent.
In order that the W3C members and general public receive the
benefit of outside innovation it is critical that innovators
be permitted to extend and experiment with W3C technologies
in any way they like--pushing out the definition and scope
of "web infrastrcuture" as they go, in unforseen ways.
The current policy is therefore shortsighted and may even
ultimately doom the W3C to irrelevance, as creativivity and
innovation is directed elsewhere, and innovation on the web
infrastructure itself withers away.
The current policy is therefore shortsighted, unhelpeful,
suicidal, and unfair. It ought to be abandoned: patented
techniques may enrich their innovators justly, but ought
not to be considered for inclusion in a W3C standard.
Justin Chen-Wells
My email APPROVING of the proposal (Score:3, Interesting)
W3C Royalty-Free ==> Patent <== Policy (Score:2)
- - - - -
I'm writing to comment on the W3C Royalty-Free Patent Policy,
and the contentious issues surrounding patent restictions as
they relate to the GPL.
I understand that a great number of people are probably writing
to express that this draft should be rejected because they
disagree with software patents in general. I completely agree
that software patents are a bad thing, but the very name of the
W3C Royalty-Free Patent Policy places it quiet squarely in the
realm covering software patent of dealing with the fact that
software patents exist.
I'd suggest that arguements focusing on the fact that software
patents are bad should be heard as a voice crying out for the
need for a W3C Patent-Free Policy, but those voices are not
relevant to a discussion as to Royalty-Free status.
I urge the W3C to request public imput regarding patent constraints
as they relate to standards. There exists a widely held belief
that web standards should not be contrained by potentially
restrictive patents.
That said, I favor the ACCEPTANCE of this policy.
Re:GPL is the bug. (Score:2)
So you've got to ensure that commercial entities can incorporate the standards in their software, yes (I don't think anyone was suggesting the contrary; perhaps the LGPL, designed for libraries with just the sort of get-out clauses you seem to suggets by implication). But you also have to provide a strong incentive for people who extend the protocls to ensure compatability, and where it becomes necessary, to open the new standards they are creating.
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.
Re:GPL is the bug. (Score:1)
Blah! (Score:3, Informative)
You can't GPL a specification, that doesn't make any sense. You can GPL a document which contains a specification, but to protect the specification itself, you would have to patent it.
The GPL has nothing to do with patents, it has to do with copyright. If patents try to assert control over copy-rights, then the GPL has something to say.
If that is it, I suppose an illustration of the implementation and the problem, would be that if GIFs were part of the standard, then we could read them from the web, and generate them for the web, but using the software for non-web purposes would be restricted?
I think what they're saying here is that people could patent use of software outside the domain of the web, and use the patented technology as part of the web standard... crippling implementations of free software in such a way that they cannot evolve beyond the web. Could intranets be a problem?
I don't really get it, as a patent is a patent is a patent. There are plenty of things free software can't do now just because of patents. This may actually be to our bennefit as patent-encumbured technologies would have to shed control if they wanted to be incorporated into the web...
Insert obligatory "patents are stupid" comment here.
Re:Patent lawsuits are stupid, but... (Score:1)
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.
Re:GPL is the bug. (Score:2)
Seriously, you have no clue what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with GPLing the standard (if that were even possible).
It's about allowing the standard to be implemented using GPL'd software. That's it. Nothing about limiting non-GPL implementations.
Note that most (all?) common web protocols can and are implemented in both GPL'd and commercial software. These guys are just trying to make sure that this continues to be true.
Re:GPL is the bug. (Score:3, Informative)
Bzzt -- there's no such thing as a specification that's GPLed, or at least I've never seen such a beast. Your post isn't very clear, but it seems you believe that the FSF is trying to promote standards that permit only GPLed implementations -- which isn't even close to what's going on.
The W3C has adopted a limp-wristed patent policy which would allow a patented technology X into web standards, so long as it was licensed for free use within the context of the relevant web technologies -- but no one, not even commercial entities, would be able to write software which imitated X outside the realm of the WWW. That's bad for everybody except the lawyers.
The only thing this even has to do with the GPL is that the GPL can't be applied to software which is restricted by patents in this way.
Re:Moderation on ``GPL is the bug.'' (Score:3, Informative)
The GPL is not an unrestricted license.
True, the GPL does not remove all restrictions which copyright law imposes. How is that relevant to the matter at hand? The matter at hand (I think) is whether we should ensure that standards are implementable by free/Libre software.
I would tend to oppose the use of a standard in which the specification is GPL'd ...
The GPL doesn't really make sense when we're talking about something like a document. That's why the FSF folks came up with their free document license. Again, there seems to be no connection to the matter at hand. Now look at the next paragraph:
If the author of a GPL'd work wishes to submit the protocol involved as a standard, then let him submit it as FREE. He can keep the code GPL'd, but the standard must be free for use -- even by commercial entities.
This seems to confirm the confusion that the earlier lines hinted at. This talks about restrictions on the text of standards, rather than restrictions on the use of standards.
This post seems to me to be off-topic. It is tangentially related, perhaps, but it definitely doesn't advance the discussion.
It might be considered inflammatory, and it almost seems to be deliberately confused, as if it were intended to provoke impassioned responses. In short, it has a smell of troll, or simple ignorance. Now, look at the moderation:
Moderation Totals: Insightful=3, Informative=1, Overrated=1, Total=5.
Three insightfuls and an informative? Moderators, if you don't know, don't moderate. Somebody with some mod points should tack on a couple more Overrated's, too.
A copyright licence is NOT a patent licence! (Score:5, Insightful)
But if Ford has a patent required for making *any* car (e.g. a component or standard required by law), Toyota is screwed.
This is about patents in internet standards which would prevent any GPL implementation. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Is ISS illegal because Apache exists? NO. But would Apache be illegal if Microsoft/ISS had a patent on HTTP? YES!
Kjella
Re:Patent lawsuits are stupid, but... (Score:1)
Never mind.
-1 Overrated (Score:2)
The GPL does not in any way restrict standards.
It is patents appearing in standards that restricts the use of standards.
-
Re:GPL is the bug. (Score:2)
I repeat:
I think you didn't read and/or fully understand the issue.
This is not about GPL, any specific license, etc. This is about standards that have been defined by W3C being patentable in non-web use.
A simple example, as I understand would be
- W3C adopts a method for special content delivery patented by company A as a standard
- W3C policy states that this standard is now freely implementable by anyone for use via web (item 3) only
- W3C isn't involved in non-web delivery;
- Hence, company A is free to claim its patent rights for implementation and distribution of its patented delivery method via e-mail, file sharing client, instant messenger, etc.
Now, you may agree or disagree with the submitter or the FSF, but taking a shot at GPL isn't warranted because that's not what is at stake. You have completely missed the point.
FFII (Score:2, Informative)
http://swpat.ffii.org
and even more important there is a very successful petition against software patents:
http://www.noepatents.org
Re:Patent lawsuits are stupid, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
If freedom is a lack of government (aka, anarchy), just remember that this whole debate is about patents, which are a product of the government. Thus, by your logic, they represent a loss of freedom, and so your whole rant becomes meaningless.
Not GPLing the standard (Re:GPL is the bug.) (Score:2)
In the other direction, we could end up with patented capabilities that are required (or just popular) on servers, but suddenly only allowed on clients or middleware made by the mega-corp that owns the patent.
The horrid implications that the bug in this clause could cause for everybody (except for the patent owners) is only spotlighted by it's obvious conflict with the GPL. If this clause is made GPL-compatible, it will create freedom for all developers and users.
Re:GPL is the bug. (Score:1)
First of all, an open standard should not put ANY restrictions of ANY kind on the standard. What does this mean? It means, if HTTP is a standard, than anyone should be able to use HTTP without licensing, royalties, etc etc... It would be acceptable to force them to abide by the standard, but not how they implement it.
Second, with all the posts talking about "Company A" and "Company B".... bah! use real-life examples. The MULTIPART content-type, developed by NETSCAPE, is part of the standard. Does that mean M$ can't use it? NO, because it is part of the standard.
Third, regarding extensions to the standard. This is completely allowed and EXPECTED within the RFC for HTTP. That's why there is not a list of all ALLOWED HTTP Headers. If I want x-malachi-geekcode as a header, I can, without breaking the specification or requiring any kind of special licensing.
Fourth, the comment was made about making specifications FREE instead of GPL'ing them... Get a grip everyone... TheSHADOW was completely right there. **IF** someone was to GPL a specification, the use of that specification would have to be GPL'd. Otherwise, you are not living up to the spirit of the license. TheSHADOW was getting at how the specifications should be PUBLIC DOMAIN (my own example) so that it is truly free. Any licensing agreement puts SOME kind of restrictions on it. Even BSD disallows ADDING restrictions, which is, in itself, a restriction. All OPEN specifications should be PUBLIC DOMAIN.
But, as to the original post... Would I ever write GPL code of ANY kind? NO. DO I think GPL code should be ALLOWED? YES.