The FSF Is 30 Years Old; Where Should They Go From Here? (fsf.org) 231
An anonymous reader writes: The Free Software Foundation is conducting a survey to gather feedback on where they should be focusing their efforts over the next five years. Should they concentrate on IP issues, UX issues, or something else? Is their stance on Free Software versus Open Source a battle that's already lost, and should they compromise? What do users think an ideal world would look like in 2020? And how miserable could things get? Without the FSF (and GNU), today's computing landscape would sure look a lot different.
To do (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with ideals, is they are never 100% accomplished, at best your ideal ends up as a major influencing force. But the problem with ideals, is that real life problems get in the way and makes things complex.
The FSF problem isn't that they have noble ideas, but the idea of Free Software, gets in the way to making a career writing software. Now some software you can make a good living with following the ideals with FSF, however other software product it just won't work.
The traditional Software Develo
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure how UX issues are part of their remit any more than child labour or bees dying are.
UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat (Score:5, Insightful)
If UX of a free application is worse on the whole than UX of the more popular proprietary alternatives, improving free software UX may increase the user base. In more concrete terms, there might be more GIMP users if GIMP were as easy to learn as Photoshop. User base is important because only the economies of scale associated with user base can make hardware makers willing to ensure that their products are compatible with GNU/Linux or other free operating systems.
Re: (Score:3)
While it is important for FLOSS developers to look at UX, the vast majority of FLOSS has nothing to do with the FSF beyond using their license agreement. UX has also been outside the scope of FSF efforts, and choosing to put more emphasis on it is bound to alienate a lot of their supporters.
So yes, look at UX. Yet choose the right people for the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In more concrete terms, there might be more GIMP users if GIMP were as easy to learn as Photoshop.
Adobe Photoshop is easy to learn? Seriously? Hopefully, Gimp developers can do better than Photoshop in terms of usability. In my opinion, both Gimp and Photoshop are very difficult to learn.
And the only app that's breaking new ground in terms of usability is Inkscape (not that Inkscape is a substitute for either Photoshop or Gimp, it's not, but it's becoming better and more usable than all the other proprietary vector graphics alternatives).
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who tried to learn gimp, then bought PS, PS is far, far easier to learn than GIMP.
I guess I didn't want to risk buying, if I wasn't able to learn how to use it during its free 30-day trial.
Not having the worst fucking GUI paradigm ever helps quite a bit.
It's not the worst. Blender is the worst. This is not to criticize the capabilities of Blender. I have huge respect for the project itself. It's just that its usability is truly the worst.
I guess you could say Gimp is second worst, but I really don't think that Photoshop is that far behind in terms of usability. After all, people have gotten used to the Macromedia tools and the Adobe tools (thanks to c
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that I would call Adobe products 'easy to learn' - I learned how to use Photoshop and Pagemaker while I was in school (running on System 7.....wow that was a long time ago). When I got into GIMP I bought a book (just like I have/had books on using Windows desktop, Linux desktop, Sharepoint, Drupal, etc; from across the years of adding new skills) to guide me,
Re: (Score:2)
As MacTO points out below, the connection is peripheral at best. If their name was the FSTETUF you might have a point.
P.S. Do you have some phobia about definite articles?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure how UX issues are part of their remit any more than child labour or bees dying are.
The user experience is make or break.
The geek ought at least to have learned by now that "free as in beer or free as in freedom" is not a driving force for most users.
Re: (Score:2)
The geek ought at least to have learned by now that "free as in beer or free as in freedom" is not a driving force for most users.
RMS understood this from the beginning, but from his experience in the early days of MIT's AI lab, he saw the value of (software) freedom, and expended a heroic amount of effort in demonstrating the value and plausibility of this freedom (by jump-starting it with his own implementations), when most others thought proprietary was the only way to go. He has succeeded beyond imagination, at least for server software, wherein UX is less an issue. Now with Android, even end user-facing applications have reason
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"free as in beer xor free as in freedom"
Fixed. You can't have both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. I think GNOME, while it is technically a GNU project, answers to the GNOME foundation rather then GNU these days, and most of the developers working on GNOME work for Red Hat.
Re: (Score:2)
What they call anti-patterns, or deceptive UIs that trick the user into acting against their own interests. For example, a prominent UK electrical retailer (Currys) will add an expensive and crappy iPad case to your basket automatically if you try to buy an iPad. You didn't ask for it, and they are hoping you didn't notice it and just won't return it.
By the way, the law says that when returning stuff like that you only need to return the item itself, not the original packaging, so be sure to destroy that so
Focus on what they do best (Score:5, Interesting)
Let 'em eat Pi (Score:3)
The availability of freely programmable general computers is not guaranteed. We are seeing a rush towards closed systems like iOS
The last couple times that argument was made (by betterunixthanunix and AC [slashdot.org]), the answer was "let 'em eat Pi" (AC [slashdot.org] and BasilBrush). What makes you see a rush away from things like Raspberry Pi and Arduino?
and Android
The last time I read the Android Compatibility Definition (CDD), it required all Android devices with Google Play to accept self-signed applications through adb install.
Re:Let 'em eat Pi (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let 'em eat Pi (Score:4, Informative)
Android is still a closed walled system.
How so? Android is free software. Or by Android did you mean Google Play?
I can see a day when ISPs start requiring "approved hardware" in order to connect to their networks for example.
Back in 2005 or so, users such as Alsee were predicting that home Internet access would be locked down using Trusted Network Connect by 2015 [slashdot.org]. It's 2016 now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that Android's development model is too cathedral-like [wikipedia.org] for some critics. But I was referring to the free software licenses that apply to the operating system (apart from Google Play). Linux and OpenJDK are under the GNU GPL version 2. Most of the rest of Android Open Source Project is under the Apache license.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not.
I'm yet to see an affordable android device that doesn't require proprietary drivers for video, gps, etc.
Even after "rooting" your device with some dubious "tools" downloaded from warez-like sites or by scouring fulldisclosure and writing your own exploit, most of the time you won't be able to install a modified system; for all intents and purposes it's a pure proprietary device.
Or "tivoized", if you like the term better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then be choosier in what you buy. Nexus devices can officially be flashed with a rooted ROM.
Re: (Score:2)
"I predict we are going to discover that people seriously suck at predicting the future."
Re: (Score:2)
To ensure subscribers run approved antivirus (Score:2)
Why would they care, as long as they're getting paid?
Because a Trusted Health Check [slashdot.org] keeps virus-infected machines off the ISP's private network.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative needs economies of scale (Score:2)
Don't buy their product, and someone else will step in with an open system.
How are you so sure about that? I didn't buy an iPad, and the alternative (a netbook) got discontinued at the end of 2012 [slashdot.org]. There need to be a substantial number of people not buying a piece of hardware in order for manufacturing an alternative to be profitable
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you see a rush away from things like Raspberry Pi and Arduino?
The boards appeal to the system builders, the technical hobbyists, a very small segment of the population. There are 700,000 ham radio operators in the U.S. 327 million cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What can 327million people do that 700,000 can't?
Constitute a sufficiently large market to enable enough economies of scale to convince peripheral makers to support it rather than making peripherals compatible only with Macs and Windows PCs.
Re: (Score:2)
They need to fight the coming tide of walled gardens and closed systems. The availability of freely programmable general computers is not guaranteed. We are seeing a rush towards closed systems like iOS and Android and corporate controlled app/software stores with signed code. I hope in 25 years end user programmable computers will still be affordable and widely available with access to the Internet.
How exactly is that Replicant project coming along?
Re: (Score:2)
very slowly I believe, as it's the work of a single figure of volunteers and whatever handsets they use or have donated.
Seems like an obvious candidate for crowdfunding - make a deal with Broadcom and produce a phone for under $100 piggybacking off the r Pi community to help work on the drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not disagreeing on the overall point, one problem however with the Free Software world is that those fights often go into the wrong direction. Take the app model on iOS and Android, on one side it's a framework that is used to provide a walled garden, on the other side the clean isolation of apps from each other drastically reduces the potential for abuse and in turn provides a flourishing ecosystem of applications. On your average Free Software system by contrast you always have to worry about a 'make inst
Re: (Score:2)
On your average Free Software system by contrast you always have to worry about a 'make install' wreaking havoc
By what definition of average? I'll bet almost all free software systems have a working package manager. I don't have to worry about apt-get install doing dangerous stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have to worry about apt-get install doing dangerous stuff.
Yes, but it does so by being a walled garden. The distri decides what goes into the repository, what version of the program and so on. As a user I can just consume what they provide me, my ability to change or object what they do is extremely limited and any more complex change will break the monolithic dependency tree. It's a system that violates everything Free Software should stands for, it works, but it doesn't give much freedom at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it does so by being a walled garden.
No it isn't. You can side-load software using any other repository system if you like (see e.g. bedrock linux). You can freely add and remove apt repositories and host your own, so you can load (or not) your own software via the main system if you like.
my ability to change or object what they do is extremely limited and any more complex change will break the monolithic dependency tree
They provide complete sources. You can make a deep change and recompile the enti
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and I am also free to jailbreak an iPhone. Just because I can do it, doesn't mean that the system is welcoming to third party software. The monolithic dependency trees used in the Free Software world are worse then what you see in the proprietary world. With Windows, as messy at it is, installing third party software isn't difficult and Microsoft goes to great length to ensure backward and forward compatibility to OS released a decade ago. It's not always works out of course, but it's a lot better then
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They need to fight the coming tide of walled gardens and closed systems
Agreed, i think they need a "free system" licence that articulates their "respects your freedom" hardware certification.
Bring out a licence that allows developers to exclusively work for those who care about freedom.
We need to accept that 'mere aggregation' is damaging to the future of free _sytems_, and can only ever lead to free isolated software components that form part of a system, with the choke points controlled by our adversaries.
(but yea, watch all the hate from the 'i just want free beer' crowd)
Easy. (Score:2, Insightful)
And how miserable could things get?
Mobile-centric (we're already headed there) with mandatory identification tied together through the bullshit of a combined arms effort of Facebook-Google-Apple.
Make Defensive Publication Possible Again! (Score:5, Interesting)
Novelty still bars a patent (Score:2)
first to the patent office with a whole bunch of cash now wins thanks to changes to U.S. law
I'm not sure what you meant by that. True, the America Invents Act [wikipedia.org] changed the priority of U.S. patent applications from the old "interference" proceedings to the first inventor to file. But this affects only priority between patent applications. Both before and after the America Invents Act, lack of novelty still disqualifies an invention from a patent. And if an invention is published by someone else before it reaches the USPTO, it is not novel. In fact, the AIA expanded the scope of prior art to include
Re: (Score:2)
It does not, that is the point of the "$PATENT with a computer" meme.
Lack of novelty is a meaningless phrase that means something warm and fuzzy to the public but has no true power to stop obvious inventions from being patented.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought recent rulings at the Supreme Court had shut down the "prior art + on a computer = patentable" formula.
I know their direction... (Score:5, Interesting)
They need to hire more lobbyists and lawyers. get people to actually band together to be members and scare the hell out of the congress critters that are hell bent on being the enemies of the people and work only for their corporate masters.
congress is afraid, deathly afraid of the NRA.... we need to get the FSF at the same level of fear.
Re: (Score:3)
A 501c3 charity can't hire lobbyists. Did you mean FSF should affiliate itself with a PAC, much as NORML Foundation [norml.org] (a charity) and NORML PAC are affiliated?
Copyright (Score:2)
Oh ideal?
Well we could stop giving all the tv coverage to terrorists maybe even go after those mass murdering telemarketers.
Copyright could be rolled back to a reasonable length.
We could eliminate another disease worldwide like we did with smallpox.
We could go back to having the option to pay for software.
We could have a sell it or STFU law to prevent companies from claiming losses on patents and copyrights they have absolutely no intentions of ever using.
As for worse
Well copyright could be extended another
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright could be rolled back to a reasonable length.
Unlikely. Reversing a past windfall would likely be deemed a "taking", requiring "just compensation" pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or foreign counterparts.
Well copyright could be extended another 100 years.
Unlikely. The only excuse that the U.S. Supreme Court ever allowed for across-the-board re-extension of the term of copyright in works whose copyright term had already been extended was harmonizing its copyright term with that of the EU. The EU hasn't extended its copyright term since.
Re: (Score:2)
First I figure it could still be done if the new length applied only to new works after a set date.
Second I hope you're right but there happens to be a certain perpetually protected mouse who will test that in 2024.
How come drugs have limits but a book of cat names can go multiple lifetimes? Ridiculous.
Independent creation (Score:2)
How come drugs have limits but a book of cat names can go multiple lifetimes? Ridiculous.
Because in theory, copyright doesn't apply to you if you've never had access to the older work. Patents apply to everyone. The longer term of a copyright is said to balance the possibility of independent creation.
Most pressing issues: (Score:5, Insightful)
GNU/Linux: Let it go. We all know what GNU has done for FOSS, but your Branding sucks.
FS vs. OS: Seriously, let it go. Keep on fighting, but stop the infighting.
Your branding and marketing sucks big time, across the board. Get some professionals and listen to them.
FOSS Projects: E-Mail needs a replacement. Start building one. Encryption and anonymity as core of the specs. Build Branding, marketing, professional UX and proper Clients for all Plattforms. Yes, including Apple. Lets get going with this overdue problem.
We need a feasible distributed Facebook Killer. Diaspora is Meh, with shitty branding and UX and others are even worse.
Those two endeavors would have a huge positive impact.
To distinguish GNU/Linux from Android (Score:2)
GNU/Linux: Let it go.
"GNU/Linux" is shorter than "End/user/Linux/other/than/Android".
And keep Stallman out of the limelight, please (Score:5, Insightful)
You hit the nail on the head, and I'd add that the leadership (namely Richard Stallman) is sometimes more of a liability to the FSF than an asset.
It's a group built around ideas, to be sure, but it's hard to sound reasonable when your leader is the definition of unreasonable: forcing people to refer to a product a certain way (it's Linux in real life, Richard, not GNU/Linux), refusing to accept that any use of closed-source software is okay, and so on. Paradoxically, he's more trapped and enslaved than many of the people using the closed software he rails against. If Stallman were around in Tunisia during the Arab Spring, he wouldn't have been out on the streets securing real, meaningful freedom (because that would involve using the "evil" Facebook and Twitter)... he'd be too busy asking the existing regime to use FOSS.
In other words: argue for free and open software by all means, but don't pretend as if your only options are to either switch completely to FOSS or else be forever tainted as a human being. The FSF needs a leader who is cool with you running open source apps on Macs and Windows PCs, and understands that it's the goal of free/open source code that matters, not how "pure" you are.
Re:And keep Stallman out of the limelight, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Strongly disagree. We need an FSF with strong principals. Time and time again Stallman has been proven right, sometimes decades later. He predicted the DRM, the walled gardens, renting software and media without ever really owning it, not being able to trust our computers at the hardware level.
While this unwillingness to compromise might mean the FSF can't do some things, it provides an essential standard that everything else can be measured by.
Re: (Score:2)
You hit the nail on the head, and I'd add that the leadership (namely Richard Stallman) is sometimes more of a liability to the FSF than an asset
Sometimes??
FSF is stuck in quicksand until they get rid of RMS and concentrate on what people want and need, not crap like Hurd and replacing things like Google Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Switching to FOSS is the ideal which we are kept from achieving by reasons of practicality. But we should aspire the complete switch, and remain uncomfortable with compromise until it becomes possible. Your flair for drama makes it seem like an either/or proposition for everyone. But I use nvidia drivers, while wishing I didn't have to, and it is fine. But purity is rather what w
Re: (Score:2)
Email works just fine. You can get increased anonymity through Tor.
Facebook is proprietary, so it would be nice if there was an alternative, but it's unlikely that the alternative would ever become more popular than Facebook itself.
FOSS projects should focus on building fundamental stuff that others can build on top of.
Don't build a Gmail clone or a Facebook clone. Build a web server that can automatically scale from 1 connection per day to 1000,000,000 connections per day and back down again to 1 connectio
This was a tough one (Score:5, Insightful)
The free software movement has been successful at achieving its goals over the last 30 years.
I mean no doubt open source has scored victory upon victory from cell phones to supercomputers, but the FSF's goals? Most users do not use a platform or applications that gives them the "four freedoms". Users in general do not see proprietary software as wrong. In fact much of their data has moved from proprietary code to proprietary services, which use open source including GPLv2 software in their delivery but don't distribute it. I don't know any service I use using the Affero license, the "GPL for SaaS" license. And with online services the DRM is more or less baked into the service, naturally it won't work without the server side and you get to do a lot more live cheat detection and bans.
A lot of the code that big companies has released is under the Apache 2 license instead of the GPL, things like Android and LLVM has gotten far more attention lately than the GCC. The lone exception is the kernel, but it mostly lives in its own "universe" not affecting user space and drivers have found ways to use blobs when they want to. In short, I don't think RMS is happy with the state of things, maybe not even the direction things are going. But I'm happy that open source keeps "hollowing out" proprietary software, if it runs on top of a LAMP stack or Docker container or whatnot they're interested in making the foundation stronger. Eventually the layer thins out to where OSS volunteers making something "good enough".
Re:This was a tough one (Score:4, Interesting)
You have to ask where we would be without the FSF. The answer is "a lot worse off". Pushing the GPL and free software, especially in the early days of the internet when GPL software became the de-facto standard for a lot of things, has created a better, freer world. No exaggeration.
where's the source of the survey? (Score:2)
yaaa, i'm not filling out the survey until i've seen the full source code and an MD5/SHA1 checksum that shows the source code is what's actually running on the server. i wouldn't want my data to be sold out by the FSF or intercepted by the NSA due to MD5 or SHA1 collisions ohshit...
Re: (Score:2)
It's here [fsf.org], linked from the footer of the page.
I'm not sure there's any method to guarantee that the source they linked is the same as the source they're running, but given that it's AGPL (and thus doing otherwise would be illegal), it seems highly likely that the FSF is in compliance; they seem like one of the least likely organizations to commit a GPL violation.
The FSF is doing enough to promote diversity and p (Score:5, Interesting)
I was going to finish the survey, but then I saw this question. There's no way to express my desire for them to stop promoting diversity and participation of underrepresented groups, and I don't want to be counted among those who oppose egalitarianism in the community.
Re:The FSF is doing enough to promote diversity an (Score:4, Interesting)
ISIS is beheading a sufficient quantity of infidels.
[ ] Strongly disagree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Neither agree nor disagree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree
Re: The FSF is doing enough to promote diversity a (Score:3)
For any of you who find it confusing, that was an example of begging the question.
Another example is "So, do you still beat your wife."
How about promoting the GPL? (Score:2)
Some ideas (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then the FSF would appreciate your feedback on what the license recommendations [gnu.org] and GPL FAQ [gnu.org] pages leave unclear.
Re: (Score:2)
They leave unclear and unanswered _why_ there is a clause in GPLv3 that applies _only_ to a specific class of products.
If the Tivo clause is necessary to ensure user's freedoms, then why does it only apply to a class of products / users:
Or, conversely, why do business / professional users get
Re: (Score:2)
Google gplv3 "user product" brought me the article "GPLv3, User Products Clause" by Allison Randal [oreilly.com], which links to the GPLv3 rationale document [fsf.org] (PDF). However, the explanation to which Randal's article refers is in rationale for draft 3 [google.com] (PDF), not rationale for draft 4 [google.com] (PDF), to which the link to the rationale currently redirects. For convenience, I quote the relevant excerpt from the rationale for draft 3 here:
Re: An easy way to comply to GPL3 ? (Score:4, Interesting)
GPL3 is more restrictive than GPL2, there is no way around this truth. A lot of companies are avoiding GPL2 like the plague, so trying to sell them on a "but this one is only very slightly worse for you" license is an absurd exercise in futility.
CGNAT and ISP TOS defeat RPi ownCloud (Score:2)
The RPI can be your PERSONAL CLOUD.
Running ownCloud on a Raspberry Pi board isn't so useful once your home ISP puts your connection behind a carrier-grade network address translation (CGNAT), citing IPv4 address exhaustion. Then you won't be able to reach the RPi in your home from outside your home. Likewise once your home ISP terminates your service for running a server at home in violation of the ISP's acceptable use policy for home accounts.
Or are you willing to move to a different city just to get a different ISP?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The RPI can be your PERSONAL CLOUD.
No, no it cannot. Cloud computing is being able to spin up as many VM, container etc. instances as you need, and be billed accordingly, on someone else's hardware which might be located anywhere. If you build your own "cloud" what you have actually done is built your own "server" or "cluster".
Cloud computing is just shared cluster farming with on-demand instances, so it's not magical. But it is something specific, and it's not plugging in a Pi and loading it with Debian.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually when people use something like iCloud they have no concept of instances. Their data is just out there somewhere, the cloud is essentially the 2010s name for cyberspace. And everything else syncs against the cloud whether it's cell phone, tablet, laptop, pc, whatever. And I think that's really the business definition too, if it's in the cloud it's not your servers and not your job managing them. You're just buying the service. I could see benefits from organizing a large company the same way interna
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pfft... Sync to the internet? I don't... I use 47 Lithuanian boys, who mimic the chittering of squirrels, to carry my packets back and forth. When one of them brings back a bad packet (one to sync with one of those newfangled cloud thingies) I beat him with a stick until he learns to filter it better!
Err... Yes, yes I'm very tired. :/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Red Hat certification (Score:2)
not to mention the expected certifications that employees are expecting compensation for... or, one or two guys with emacs and some unix boxes.
Are you trying to tell me that people don't expect compensation for certifications in RHEL, a distribution of GNU/Linux?
DFSG and OSD are substantially identical (Score:3)
Open source software is not always free software.
I'm aware of philosophical differences between users of the two terms [gnu.org]. But I wonder what substantial difference you're seeing between the terms with respect to the software itself, as the Open Source Definition [opensource.org] published by Open Source Initiative is nearly word-for-word identical to the Debian Free Software Guidelines [debian.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem you have is that RMS/FSF do NOT believe in intellectual PROPERTY. They don't believe that what your mind produces is property - rather, they look at it as knowledge - something that should be as free as the air you breathe. The worst part of it is that RMS has systematically opposed anything that makes it profitable for developers i.e. anything PRACTICAL that would help you make money. Like when he suggested making money by writing documentation, and then turned around and demanded that docu
Re: (Score:2)
GP was complaining about FSF principles resulting in him being ripped off. In other words, something he did for no price was sold by someone else elsewhere. Which is perfectly legit w/ the FSF, but he saw himself getting shafted.
Intellectual property takes many forms. In case of software, it's not just the idea of doing something: it's also the how-to, amongst other things. What the GP described was code that he had written, and which others used in profiteering. Had he NOT written or NOT provided
Re: (Score:2)
All property is imaginary. A construct of laws. You could make an argument in principle for own body being inherently sovereign, but even then people argue about it with things like fetal rights / abortion / mandatory vaccinations / organ donors / etc., not to mention that abhorrent ideas like slavery have existed which prove that people can indeed claim ownership on another's body.
The idea that property's defining attribute is that you can "give it back" is a strange invention of yours. Property is, lit
Re: (Score:2)
Software patents definitely make sense. The SCOPE of it is something one can debate - like rounded cornered rectangles vs an IPv6 ULA assignment mechanism. One of them is too broad, the other reasonably right, since there are any number of ways of doing the latter. So of course, ALL patents should not be granted, but SOME should.
If you are giving something away to someone else, it should be up to you as to what exactly you give. Like if you give a cooked rotisserie chicken to somebody, then that's fin
Re: (Score:2)