Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix Your Rights Online

FSF's Position On Proposed W3C "RF" Patent Policy 20

Posted by timothy from the technical-difficulties dept.
bkuhn writes "FSF released its position on the proposed W3C 'RF' patent policy. W3C's proposed policy is a step in the right direction (compared to RAND), but because of 'field of use' restrictions, it is in fact not a Free-Software-friendly policy. The Free Software community is encouraged to say so in their comments on the last call draft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FSF's Position On Proposed W3C "RF" Patent Policy More

FSF's Position On Proposed W3C "RF" Patent Policy

Comments Filter:
  • Honest question, not a troll: does anybody care what the FSF thinks about this? From the looks of things, there are a few hardliners who believe the FSF really knows what's what, but it seems like the majority of Slashdotters don't really follow the FSF's lead particularly closely.

    A good example of this is the recent "GNU/Linux" thing. There are a few posters here who still insist on referring to it as "GNU/Linux," but nobody else really paid any attention.

    So I'm really interested in finding out how many-- if any, I guess-- people who post here really think the FSF's opinion on this is that important.

    (Here come the down-mods. I hope people read this and respond to it in the spirit of open discussion anyway.)
    • Well they do have a good point, that RF is not compatible with the GPL. From there most slashdotters would form their own opinions, but I take that compatiblity part to be fact and not opinion, so this is important.

    • Re:does anybody care (Score:4, Interesting)

      by sab39 ( 10510 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @04:40PM (#4754179) Homepage
      The FSF's position is important not because everyone is obligated to regard it as gospel and follow it blindly (although some do), or to regard it as heresy and blindly criticise it (although some do), but because in most (not all) cases, the FSF present a well-reasoned argument and raise an important issue.

      I don't agree with them on the GNU/Linux thing (although even there, I respect their argument as well-reasoned, if you accept enough of their premises) but reading their position statements is always worthwhile, from my point of view. Even if I don't agree, it's good to challenge my views by exposing myself to well-reasoned opposing ones.

      In this case, in particular, the FSF raised a very significant point and one which I, for one, hadn't noticed. I suspect that the chances of the outcome that the FSF hopes for are slim, since the community had to fight tooth and nail for the limited victory we already won, but it's very important to be aware of the limitations of the victory, and to continue to work towards eventually removing that limitation, even if it's not immediate. Without the FSF to point this out, we'd all be celebrating our "victory" and moving onto the next fight - the FSF remind us that there's still a battle here to continue fighting. That's a good thing, IMHO, whatever you think of the FSF.

      Stuart.
    • The FSF's point here is that W3C RF policy will not just make OSS implementations difficult, it
      will make it, in some cases, impossible. Copyright code offered "royalty-free but with constraints"
      is sort of a poisoned apple. You can use it in the intended application, but the code
      using it can never be GPL.

      • Copyright code offered "royalty-free but with constraints" is sort of a poisoned apple. You can use it in the intended application, but the code
        using it can never be GPL.

        Okay, just to play the devil's advocate here, would it be more acceptable to the FSF if that code is simply never released? I mean, don't they sometimes give off the impression that they either want software released under the GPL or a "compatible" license (not sure what that means), or not at all?

        Just looking for knowledge, here.

        • While I obviously don't speak for the FSF, I'd guess the answer is that it doesn't really matter whether the code is released or not, because unless it is released as Free Software (by their definition, which is not limited to the GPL), it's not usuable in other Free Software.

          More accurately, even if it is released under (say) the BSD license, it's still not really free, because of the (not-so-) hidden trap of the patent license. (Just because you the right to use, modify, and distribute the code that implements the patented technology doesn't make it possible to use the resulting program, if doing so violates the patent license.)

        • I mean, don't they sometimes give off the impression that they either want software released under the GPL or a "compatible" license (not sure what that means), or not at all?

          It doesn't just seem that way, that's exactly what they're saying! You can find out all this and more just by reading what Mr. Stallman and others have written [fsf.org]. They've done their best from the beginning to get to a state where they were able to use a system that was comprised only of Free Software (such as you'll find with the default install of Debian GNU/Linux), now that they have that of course they're not going to give it up without at least complaining a little. :)
      • The FSF's point here is that W3C RF policy will not just make OSS implementations difficult, it will make it, in some cases, impossible.

        That misses a big part of their point. The FSF speaks in support of the Free Software movement, not the Open Source movement. The difference between the two movements [gnu.org] is key to understanding the root of their problem with the W3C's patent policy.

        The Open Source movement discourages you from paying attention to software freedom. This can result in ignoring barriers that prevent everyone from sharing software and modifying software to suit their needs. The GNU GPL, the most popular Free Software license, is only an Open Source license because the OSI defined their terms broadly enough to include the GPL in an approved license list. The Free Software Foundation did the work behind the GNU GPL: they determined which issues the license would address, they wrote the GPL to address those issues, and they have maintained the GPL through today. Much of this work occurred well before the Open Source movement began.

        So please give credit where credit is due and do not cite this work in the context of the wrong movement.

        Copyright code offered "royalty-free but with constraints" is sort of a poisoned apple.

        It is, but it's important to note we're talking about implementations of patented ideas. Implementations of patented ideas are usually under copyright but it is the terms of the patent that are chiefly at issue. Patents and copyrights are distinctly different segments of law but are commonly thrown together in a mish-mash some people call "intellectual property [gnu.org]" (a term which is inappropriate in more ways than is apropos to talk about here).

        You can use it in the intended application, but the code using it can never be GPL.

        The patent policy under discussion can adversely affect the entire Free Software community regardless of which Free Software license is involved, not just GNU GPL licensees.

    • I think that the main point of the release is not necessarily to condemn the W3C's policy in any way, but to remind people that it isn't completely GPL compatible. The GPL is their license and it is important for them to take positions like this and clarify things how this works with the GPL.
    • They aren't stating only an opinion; they are also pointing out two facts:

      1. You can't use the GPL for software whose patent is licensed with field-of-use restrictions. This would mean that existing GPLed software could not be extended to implement W3C standards with these restrictions. Since the GPL is a very popular license, such restrictions could cause problems for many free software projects

      2. Even if you use an MIT-style license, the software still will not be free because it may infringe the patent license to use that code in another project that falls outside the field-of-use restrictions.

      Regardless of your views of the ethical stances the FSF takes on copyright, patents, and naming operating systems, the above 2 points will cause practical problems for developers of W3C standards implementations. Since the FSF developed the GPL, have defined "free software", and have the thought the most deeply about these issues, what they think is important and worth listening to, whether or not you agree with them on this or other issues.

      ~Philliip

    • Honest question, not a troll: does anybody care what the FSF thinks about this?

      Yes, I care because the GNU GPL is the preeminent Free Software license. I care because the FSF is concerned with everyone's freedom to share and modify software, and that includes me. Their mission requires thorough analysis of the ethics and freedoms of Free Software, an analysis I think the FSF has done an excellent job of providing. This concern includes talking about patents that adversely affect those freedoms.

      From the looks of things, there are a few hardliners who believe the FSF really knows what's what[...]

      It's also possible people believe the FSF knows "what's what" because these people have considered the matter of Free Software seriously and reached a conclusion compatible with the FSF's position. The FSF has been around dutifully working on Free Software issues for so long many people have had the opportunity to learn what the FSF stands for.

      A good example of this is the recent "GNU/Linux" thing. There are a few posters here who still insist on referring to it as "GNU/Linux," but nobody else really paid any attention.

      Judging by the size of the Slashdot thread [slashdot.org] when the FSF published their GNU/Linux FAQ [gnu.org] I'd say a lot of Slashdot readers paid attention--it was quite a popular discussion for Slashdot. I think it is fair to give credit where credit is due, and it is reasonable to draw fine distinctions in order to speak and understand things more clearly. I find calling the union of the GNU operating system and the Linux kernal "GNU/Linux" to be helpful to both of those ends. I also find the term helpful to instruct other people on why GNU is so important, and helpful to explain what Linus Torvalds contributed.

  • From reading the FSF position, I think the only real fix is to revise the patent system. Clearly, the patents wouldn't be worth a lot to those holding it if they would not be able to restrict anything.

    There is not much to do about that, other than throw out the whole software-patents system.

  • The FSF has a vested interest in this not just because the "field of use" clause violates the GPL but because it could really be restrictive. Here's the example given by the FSF (which I found confusing):

    "W3 members may contribute patent claims to a standard describing the behavior of web servers providing particular functionality. A Free Software program implementing that standard would be available for others to copy from, in order to add functionality to browsers, or non-interactive web clients. But if, as the present proposed policy permits, the patent-holder has licensed the practicing of its patent claims "royalty-free" only "in order to implement the standard", reuse of the relevant code in these latter environments would still raise possible patent infringement problems."

    I read this as the current proposed policy contains a gaping loophole. If I understand this correctly then a patent can be included, royalty free, in a W3C standard but the royalty free part is only for a very limited scope. I fear that it's like those bills in Congres that have these nice sounding names but have wording so contrary that you have to question the basic integrity of the authors. On one hand I would like to trust that the W3C is working towards standards that benefit the common good but I still worry that they will bend to the will of companies who simply want their patents to also be standards.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Close