Salve FSF-Europe,
I don`t want to bother you with SCO, but BBC is calling for comments,
& maybe some of you like to answer to this BBC article:
BBC Technologie
Friday, 29 August, 2003, 13:43 GMT 14:43 UK
Linux community told to 'get real'
The Linux community should come down from the moral high ground, says
technology analyst Bill Thompson
"Linux is a great operating system, and free software is a vital alternative
to the buggy systems sold by Microsoft and other large companies.
It is not perfect though, and it is not immune from copyright law just because
it is morally superior.
The Linux community needs to accept that this could be a real problem, and put
processes in place to make sure it cannot happen instead of simply dismissing
all criticism as unfounded. "
This statement is quite OK, but who is Bill Thompson? This BBC article sugesst
that SCO has a Copyright - BTW SCOX is over 14$ high again.
"Should the Linux community get off their high-horses and face the realities
of copyright?
Send us your comments:"
Visit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3191281.stm
Greetings
rob
Alex Hudson wrote:
> No, it's definitely not a contract. Copyright gives you a certain group
> of rights. The GPL is basically waiving some of those rights (granting
> the rights to the user) under certain conditions. A contract is a
> two-way thing, a licence is a one-way thing (i.e., a grant from licensor
> to licensee).
I found a few references indicating that a license is a form of a contract:
Check definition "license":
http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Intellectual_Property/Copyright_Guide/definit…
And under here, it gives a few examples of how the "use rights" can be
defined as a contract:
http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Digital_Content/Capture_Collections/legal_iss…
Further government information likes to use the terms "agreement" as
well, but in the Contract Law it uses the term "agreement" to define a
contract. At best, the distrinction between a Copyright License and a
Contract in Canada is unclear, leaning towards treating the license as a
contract.
But the GPL is not a one-way grant, because it puts additional onuses on
you, should you wish to distribute it. Most licenses are also two-way:
I grant you permission to copy, and you give me money. If you have
truly created a condition free grant, that is still similar to a Deed
Contract in Canada (though those have to be done "under seal").
> Ah, assignment of copyright is something completely different. In the
> above, we're not assigning the copyright - we're licensing it. We still
Sorry, slip of the hands, I meant licensing, not assignment, in many
countries you aren't even allowed to assign your copyright (like in
Germany -- but don't tell GEMA that, useless bastards).
--
edA-qa mort-ora-y
Idea Architect
http://disemia.com/
Salve FSF-people!
after the BlackOut 2003 the massmedia were only looking for symptomes for the
big black out, but not for reasons why it was so big. So I started to do
research on Saterday last week and now 7 days later non-stop working on it I
fould a lot of facts like
- the enegy industrie has a big problem with IT-security
- that there have been a Slammer worm attack at the Davis-Besse nuclear power
plant on 25.01.2003 inside the control network[1]
- there was no firewall between business and control network
- power plants use Windows 2000
- SCADA, used for controll and comand case in the energie sector is not secure
- SCADA use Port 135, the same as W32.Blaster
- the EoD gave hints how to secure SCADA in 21 (!) steps
- on 13.08.2003 the NERC anounced a "Cyber Security Standard"
- power plants use unencrypted WLAN
- there are important SCADA comunications over public internet
- The Departemant of Homeland Security has call on blocking port 135
(when it is not realy needed for business) to power plants and ISPs
-.....
I will not say why it was - but the energy companies are in big IT-trouble!
On the second look, this big problems are a big trouble for the IT branche,
too.
I fear that action which will now takes will conceal only the symptomes and
will not solve the reasons. Actions of the Departemant of Homeland Security
are also a likely danger that some IT-firms which are friends of the
Bush-adminsitration, will influce the "Cyber Security Standard" and other
actions in their interest.
My result is that it is needed to call for "More sutainted Software" and IT
solutions.
I have a 70kB German text with English quotes written to be maby published
at the online-magazin telepolis www.heise.de/tp
What are your opinion about this?
Would be great if some experiant German-reading person would contact me.
And I would like feedback of a FSF-Speaker to answer me questions for this
article.
Greetings
rob
[1]
-Go to http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html
- Use "Advanced Search"
-Search for "Davis-Besse" & Filter with "worm"
- Press "Search"
- Open " 1. (91) Davis-Besse - Worm Virus Infection E-Mail.
ML031040567 2003-04-02 7
05000346 NPF-003 2003-04-02 2003-04-15 --------- FOR INFORMATION ONLY---------
WORM VIRUS INFECTION On January 25, 2003 a server on the Plant Network was
thought to be infected with the MS- SQL Server Worm. The consequence of the
infection was large amount
As a follow-up on the WIPO-issue:
On Larry Lessig's Blog someone posted two recents interview with someone
of WIPO, and Lois Boland of the US Patent Office
http://lessig.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1436
Quote to remember:
“Open-source software is not protected under copyright law but only
contract law, which is not the domain of WIPO”. -- Lois Boland, US
Patent Office, august 2003
Wouter Vanden Hove
www.opencursus.be
In july there was the Open Letter to the WIPO that received positive
interest and response in Nature. No more today.
quote to remember:
Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the
mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.
"To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such
rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23422-2003Aug20.html
I don't know wheter this text will be gratis available in the future, so
I repost it here:
The Quiet War Over Open-Source
By Jonathan Krim
Thursday, August 21, 2003; Page E01
Every day now, it seems, we do battle with technology. If it isn't spam,
it's worms. If it isn't the worms, it's viruses, or hacking, or identity
theft. Sometimes, it's the gadgets and software we buy that are still
too hard to use.
But as technology in general, and the Internet in particular, drives
deeper into the fabric of daily life, battles also rage behind the
scenes. They are struggles for control over how the Internet should
work, over who sets the rules for its pipes and gateways and who owns
the material that moves through them. These are the wars fought with
armies of corporate lobbyists, technologists and citizen activists but
largely ignored by the general public. And none is larger, or carries
higher financial stakes, than the issue with the eye-glazing name of
intellectual property.
Consumers are getting a taste of this right now, as the major record
companies sue hundreds of people for stealing their works by using
file-sharing programs. On another front, "open-source" software, which
relies on collaboration and sharing of computer code rather than
traditional for-profit development and distribution of programs, is
capturing the attention of cash-strapped governments and businesses as a
less-expensive alternative to commercial products.
Open-source software has been embraced by some companies that are
building businesses around it. But it is the bane of others, including
the industry's most powerful player, Microsoft Corp. The world's largest
software maker is lobbying furiously in state, national and
international capitals against laws that would promote the consideration
or use of open-source software.
So alarmed agents of Microsoft sprang into high gear in June after a
surprising quote appeared in Nature magazine from an official of the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The official said that
the Switzerland-based group of about 180 nations, which promotes
intellectual-property rights and standards around the globe, was
intrigued by the growth of the open-source movement and welcomed the
idea of a meeting devoted to open-source's place in the
intellectual-property landscape.
The proposal for the meeting had come in a letter from nearly 60
technologists, economists and academics from around the world, and was
organized by James Love, who runs the Ralph Nader-affiliated Consumer
Project on Technology.
Love and others argue that in some areas, such as pharmaceuticals or
software that powers critical infrastructure or educational tools,
developing nations in particular would benefit from less restrictive or
alternative copyright, patent or trademark systems.
In short order, lobbyists from Microsoft-funded trade groups were
pushing officials at the State Department and the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office to squelch the meeting. One lobbyist, Emery Simon with
the Business Software Alliance, said his group objected to the
suggestion in the proposal that overly broad or restrictive
intellectual-property rights might in some cases stunt technological
innovation and economic growth.
Simon insists that his group does not oppose open-source software, or
discussion of the issue, but fights to defend the notion that a strong
system of proprietary rights offers the best avenue for the development
of groundbreaking software by giving its inventors economic incentive to
do so.
And he said that the BSA's governing board, composed of several
companies in addition to Microsoft, unanimously opposed the letter and
the meeting.
The U.S. government, which wields considerable clout in WIPO, might not
have needed prodding from Microsoft to demand that the idea of an
open-source meeting be quashed.
Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the
mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.
"To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such
rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said.
She added that the WIPO official who embraced the meeting had done so
without proper consultation with the member states, and that WIPO's
budget already is strained and cannot accommodate another meeting next
year.
Boland said that if groups such as Love's want an international forum
for discussion of open-source, they need to find another organization to
host it.
The WIPO official, Francis Gurry, did not return numerous calls for
comment, but the organization has said it no longer has plans for an
open-source gathering.
The meeting dust-up is further inflaming an argument that has the fervor
of religious debate.
Open-source proponents note that its software is here to stay, gaining
adoption within the federal government and elsewhere. And they argue
that many open-source models rely on property rights through licenses,
but apply them in less traditional ways.
More broadly, though, they envision a world in which the Internet is the
connective tissue that creates a public commons, a place where art and
technology should be shared as well as bought and sold. Why, they ask,
should that not be debated with vigor?
But open-source is not just a political challenge. It strikes a starkly
different, and sometimes opposite, pose from that of traditional
capitalist systems.
And that prospect quickly draws the lobbyists, even if the public isn't
tuned in.
Jonathan Krim's e-mail address is krimj(a)washpost.com.
Howdy Bruce,
In February 1999, you made a strong statement that "It's time to talk
about free software again":
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/debian-devel-199902/msg01641.html>
"Most hackers know that Free Software and Open Source are just two
words for the same thing. Unfortunately, though, Open Source has
de-emphasized the importance of the freedoms involved in Free
Software. It's time for us to fix that. We must make it clear to the
world that those freedoms are still important, and that software
such as Linux would not be around without them."
This sentiment was enthusiastically accepted by the free software
community, and is surely even more relevant today. You recognised the
benefit of the FSF Europe's "We Talk About Free Software" campaign:
<http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/web/2001-November/001322.html>
Yet in recent years I note that you almost exclusively talk about "open
source", not "free software". Since you talk about it a lot, and your
opinion is (rightly) respected and listened to, this mixed message is of
concern to many in the free software community.
<http://www.gnu-friends.org/comments/2002/3/11/174244/320?pid=6>
What is the reason for departing from your laudable 1999 announcement?
I've seen no similar announcement that "It's time to switch again to not
talking about freedom". Do you no longer feel that software freedoms
are worth discussing -- even emphasising?
--
\ "One time I went to a drive-in in a cab. The movie cost me |
`\ ninety-five dollars." -- Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney <ben(a)benfinney.id.au>
I'm resending news here that most of you possibly already know,
but we need as much diffusion as possible, and I believe it's not
completely off topic.
FFII News -- For Immediate Release -- Please Redistribute
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++
Aug 27 Demonstrations against EU Software Patent Plans
Brussels 2003/08/19
For immediate Release
The Proposal for a software patent directive, which will be submitted
to the European Parliament for plenary debate and subsequent decision
on September 1st, giving rise to another wave of protests. Various
groups in Belgium and elsewhere are mobilising for a rally in Brussels
on August 27th and are calling on web administrators to temporarily
block their web sites.
Details
The Proposal for a software patent directive, which will be submitted
to the European Parliament for plenary debate and subsequent decision
on September 1st, giving rise to another wave of protests. The
Eurolinux Alliance is calling for participation in a rally in Brussels
on August 27th, comprising a street performance at 12.00 on Luxemburg
Square and conference at 14.00 in the European Parliament, and for
accompanying online demonstrations.
"The directive proposal as prepared by Arlene McCarthy MEP would
impose US-style unlimited patentability of algorithms and business
methods such as Amazon One Click Shopping" says Benjamin Henrion, who
is heading a local organisational team with the backing of a coalition
of organisations representing 2000 software companies and 160,000
individuals, mostly software professionals.
In an appeal, the organisers call on European citizens to stand up for
the public interest to defend freedom of creation against logic
patents, to defend copyright-based software property against
patent-based software piracy, to defend software innovation against
patent inflation, to defend software users against reduced choices and
monopoly pricing.
They call on the European Patent Office: Stop littering Europe's
information highway! and on the European Parliament: Punish the
polluters, don't legalise the pollution!
The program in Brussels is approximately as follows, more details will
be supplied soon:
12.00-14.00 | Place du Luxembourg | Performance, balloons, patent chain,
speeches, ...
14.00-16.00 | EuroParl[13][1] | Conference
"In May a [14]two-day software patent conference in and near the
European Parliament attracted 200 participants. Leaders of the
scientific commuities and software business world condemned the
directive proposal in every respect. Yet in June the EP Legal Affairs
Commission endorsed this proposal with further amendments that make it
even worse", explains Henrion. "More and more people are now seeing
this very clearly. We expect even more participatants this time."
Yet the vast majority of our supporters will certainly not be on
Luxemburg Square on August 27th. "Those who can not come to Brussels
should demonstrate online, using their web servers or other internet
services", says Hartmut Pilch, president of FFII. "We have
[15]proposed a series of ways in which this can be done. There is
certainly a way for everyone. Better make access to your webpage a bit
more difficult now for one or two days than lose your freedom of
publication for the next ten years. Note that if the McCarthy report
is approved without drastic amendments, programmers and Internet
Service Providers will be regularly sued for patent infringement, if
they publish programs on the Internet. If the Parliament votes for the
McCarthy proposal now, there will be no more chances for democratic
control later."
Annotated Links
-> [16]AEL Big Demo 27 aug Wiki
Hints on how to participate in the demo, needed equipment on
site, who provides what, etc
-> [17]FFII BXL 2003/08 Wiki
Holger's editable auxiliary pages for the 2003/08/27 demo and
related events. Includes hints on hotel/hostel rooms, t-shirts,
banners etc
-> [18]2003/08 Letter to Software Creators and Users
The European Parliament will, in its plenary session on
September 1st, decide on a directive proposal which ensures
that algorithms and business methods like Amazon One Click
Shopping become patentable inventions in Europe. This proposal
has the backing of about half of the parliament. Please help us
make sure that it will be rejected. Here are some things to do.
-> [19]2003/08/25-9 BXL: Software Patent Directive Amendments
Members of the European Parliament are coming back to work on
monday August 25th. It is the last week before the vote on the
Software Patent Directive Proposal. We are organising a
conference and street rally wednesday the 27th. Some of our
friends will moreover be staying in the parliament for several
days. Time to work decide on submission of amendments to the
software patent directive proposal is running out. FFII has
proposed one set of amendments that stick as closely as
possible to the original proposal while debugging and somewhat
simplifying it. An alternative small set of amendments would
"cut the crap" and rewrite the directive from scratch. We
present and explain the possible approaches.
-> [20]Online Demonstration Against Software Patents
We can show our concern by physical presence as well as by more
or less gently blocking access to webpages in a concerted
manner at certain times.
-> [21]European Parliament Rejects Attempt to Rush Vote on Software
Patent Directive
The European Parliament has postponed the vote on the software
patent directive back to the original date of 1st of September,
thereby rejecting initially successful efforts of its
rapporteur Arlene McCarthy (UK Labour MEP of Manchester) and
her supporters to rush to vote on June 30th, a mere twelve days
after publication of the highly controversial report and ten
days after the unexpected change of schedule.
-> [22]JURI votes for Fake Limits on Patentability
The European Parliament's Committee for Legal Affairs and the
Internal Market (JURI) voted on tuesday morning about a list of
proposed amendments to the planned software patent directive.
It was the third and last in a series of committee votes, whose
results will be presented to the plenary in early september.
The other two commissions (CULT, ITRE) had opted to more or
less clearly exclude software patents. The JURI rapporteur
Arlene McCarthy MEP (UK socialist) also claimed to be aiming
for a "restrictive harmonisation of the status quo" and
"exclusion of software as such, algorithms and business methods
from patentability". Yet McCarthy presented a voting list to
fellow MEPs which, upon closer look, turns ideas like "Amazon
One-Click Shopping" into patentable inventions. McCarthy and
her followers rejected all amendment proposals that try to
define central terms such as "technical" or "invention", while
supporting some proposals which reinforce the patentability of
software, e.g. by making publication of software a direct
patent infringment, by stating that "computer-implemented
inventions by their very nature belong to a field of
technology", or by inserting new economic rationales
("self-evident" need for Europeans to rely on "patent
protection" in view of "the present trend for traditional
manufacturing industry to shift their operations to low-cost
economies outside the European Union") into the recitals. Most
of McCarthy's proposals found a conservative-socialist 2/3
majority (20 of 30 MEPs), whereas most of the proposals from
the other committees (CULT = Culture, ITRE = Industry) were
rejected. Study reports commissioned by the Parliament and
other EU institutions were disregarded or misquoted, as some of
their authors point out (see below). A few socialists and
conservatives voted together with Greens and Left in favor of
real limits on patentability (such as the CULT opinion, based
on traditional definitions, that "data processing is not a
field of technology" and that technical invention is about "use
of controllable forces of nature"), but they were overruled by
the two largest blocks. Most MEPs simply followed the voting
lists of their "patent experts", such as Arlene McCarthy (UK)
for the Socialists (PSE) and shadow rapporteur Dr. Joachim
Wuermeling (DE) for the Conservatives (EPP). Both McCarthy and
Wuermeling have closely followed the advice of the directive
proponents from the European Patent Office (EPO) and the
European Commission's Industrial Property Unit (CEC-Indprop,
represented by former UK Patent Office employee Anthony Howard)
and declined all offers of dialog with software professionals
and academia ever since they were nominated rapporteurs in May
2002.
-> [23]Why Amazon One Click Shopping is Patentable under the Proposed
EU Directive
According to the European Commission (CEC)'s Directive Proposal
COM(2002)92 for "Patentability of Computer-Implemented
Inventions" and the revised version approved by the European
Parliament's Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal
Market (JURI), algorithms and business methods such as Amazon
One Click Shopping are without doubt patentable subject matter.
This is because
1. Any "computer-implemented" innovation is in principle
considered to be a patentable "invention".
2. The additional requirement of "technical contribution in the
inventive step" does not mean what most people think it
means.
3. The directive proposal explicitly aims to codify the practise
of the European Patent Office (EPO). The EPO has already
granted thousands of patents on algorithms and business
methods similar to Amazon One Click Shopping.
4. CEC and JURI have built in further loopholes so that, even if
some provisions are amended by the European Parliament,
unlimited patentability remains assured.
-> [24]FFII: Software Patents in Europe
For the last few years the European Patent Office (EPO) has,
contrary to the letter and spirit of the existing law, granted
more than 30000 patents on computer-implemented rules of
organisation and calculation (programs for computers). Now
Europe's patent movement is pressing to consolidate this
practise by writing a new law. Europe's programmers and
citizens are facing considerable risks. Here you find the basic
documentation, starting from a short overview and the latest
news.
Contact
mail:
media at ffii org
phone:
Hartmut Pilch +49-89-18979927
[25]Benjamin Henrion +32-10-454761
More Contacts to be supplied upon request
About the Eurolinux Alliance -- www.eurolinux.org
The EuroLinux Alliance for a Free Information Infrastructure is an
open coalition of commercial companies and non-profit associations
united to promote and protect a vigourous European Software Culture
based on copyright, open standards, open competition and open source
software such as Linux. Corporate members or sponsors of EuroLinux
develop or sell software under free, semi-free and non-free licenses
for operating systems such as GNU/Linux, MacOS or MS Windows.
About the FFII -- www.ffii.org
The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) is a
non-profit association registered in Munich, which is dedicated to the
spread of data processing literacy. FFII supports the development of
public information goods based on copyright, free competition, open
standards. More than 250 members, 300 companies and 15,000 supporters
have entrusted the FFII to act as their voice in public policy
questions in the area of exclusivity rights (intellectual property) in
the field of software.
Permanent URL of this Press Release
http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/demo0819/index.en.html
_________________________________________________________________
Notes
[1] Room number to be announced tomorrow. External visitors,
including journalists, need to register in advance. Please contact
bxl030827 at ffii org for this purpose.
References
14. http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2003/europarl/05/index.en.html
15. http://swpat.ffii.org/group/demo/index.en.html
16. http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/BigDemo27aug
17. http://offen.ffii.org/bxl/
18. http://swpat.ffii.org/letters/parl038/index.en.html
19. http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2003/europarl/08/index.en.html
20. http://swpat.ffii.org/group/demo/index.en.html
21. http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/plen0626/index.en.html
22. http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/juri0617/index.en.html
23. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/tech/index.en.html
24. http://swpat.ffii.org/index.en.html
25. http://bh.udev.org/
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis(a)tinet.org
On 14 Jan 2003 at 1:42, xdrudis(a)tinet.org wrote:
> I've learnt not to believe everything a MEP says. I don't mean
> they're wrong. I mean they often don't realise how wrong the
> directive is. On the other hand, it is a bit of human nature:
> the MEP wants the less possible amount of work to do (it's
> not only laziness, it also gives more chances to "succeed"),
> and the constituent wants the MEP do as much work as necessary.
> The problem is making them understand what they think that
> incresases chances os succeeding is increasing chances of something
> which is no success at all.
As much as we may want a complete overhaul of the EU parliamentary
system and indeed democracy, I think it's unproductive in this
particular context.
I state once again that software patents will exist in some form.
There is no point arguing that we're not mandated to, or that they
can be averted. Being unrealistic is the single best way to bring
down the worst possible form of software patent upon us.
Far better IMHO is to mitigate the negative effects of a done deal.
That is what we should aim for.
> > Yes. However, I've considerably improved by background
> > understanding
> > of the theory of patents, how they work wrt classical economic
> > theory, and why under that same theory US-style patents have the
> > opposite effect.
>
> Don't believe every MEP has the same model, though. Anyway,
> I think I was assuming your proposals were more concrete or
> you had more familiarity with the directive than you had.
> My mistake. I understand you're spending quite a lot of time
> in this, and of course reading the directive is your first
> prioritu, but after that, I'd be thankful if you could read
>
> http://patents.caliu.info/aboutMcCarthyConsiderations.html
>
> and maybe references, since some of the arguments pro-swpat MEPs put
> forward are already discussed there.
Actually, the final directive which I've read through twice now is
the last of my reading on the matter. I have read so many analyses
and drafts of amendments of the directive that it's been good to read
finally what the hell they've all been talking about.
The first thing which struck me is "why is this proposed legislation
so vague?". Vague legislation is automatically bad legislation. If I
had tried proposing a motion like that at student council at
university, it would have been struck down immediately as
unratifiable.
> > I think everyone here can agree that book-style copyright is
> > totally
> > inappropriate for software too. In fact, all IP law for anything
> > representable inside a computer needs completely rewriting.
>
> No. I don't think book style copyright is inapropiate to software in
> principle, only recent copyright extensions and fundamentalism is
> inapropiate/dangerous, but should we go into the details?.
You should read the FSF's words on the matter. I don't believe in the
crap about all knowledge should automatically be the free property of
all mankind - but I do believe it should become so after the creator
has been adequately rewarded for their hard work.
The new ability of technology to let me share most copyrighted work
with millions of others without paying a penny means that existing
copyright law is unenforceable. This effect will grow until there
will no longer be any realistic financial reward for writing a book
or song, filming a movie or making a television series. And most
certainly not for writing some computer software except as a pure
services role like military contracts. The profit margin on those are
rapidly decreasing too as more off the shelf components become
available.
> > That time is coming. The day someone writes a cheap peer-to-peer
> > fully encrypted and completely untrackable file sharing system with
> > integrated anti-spy measures, the death bell will truly have
> > knelled. I estimate no more than five years away.
>
> The day they put in prison the authors and a few exemplary users,
> seize the communication companies, etc. your wonderful technology
> comes to nothing. This is wishful thinking. Freedom must be understood
> and demanded by everyone, not achieved by magical means. Come on,
> they're already charging against people for having smartcard
> programmers or simply high DSL traffic at home.
They can only imprison a tiny fraction of those who "break the law".
If what you say works, then they would have stopped recreational drug
use decades ago. Since its use still increases, clearly you are the
one with wishful thinking.
You cannot stop innate human behaviour. No one has ever succeeded and
I doubt they ever will.
> > Shouldn't I comment that on a public list? I'm sure it's public
> > information.
>
> No. I didn't mean you shouldn't. I mean you might not want to, but
> since you do, then you evidently want to. It's perfectly ok to talk
> abut conversations with other people as long as the other people don't
> mind. No problem here. There is always a possibility than a MEP will
> feel more confident defending an amendment if he or she has some
> "surprise factor" and/or if she or he is seen as the direct drafter.
I got a strong sense that she was looking for guidance as what to do.
> > Now I finally have the proposed directive, I can finally be
> > specific
> > wrt revisions. I'll give it a first reading tonight before bed.
>
> Fine.
The first highly important one is the requirement for a working
example of the patented software in source form (as suggested by the
two committees lower down). We must push for that beyond all other
amendments.
The second highly important one is the amendment (also suggested
lower down) which leaves open for radical changes if evidence of
abuse is presented after three years. Immediately after ratification
the FSF Europe should open a registrar on the web where the public
can enter abuses of the software patent system. Or even better,
another directive amendment could mandate the EU to do this for us.
The third highly important amendment is needing to set what precisely
involves an inventive step. I would make it high ie; "a substantial
advance over the status quo". I would also have the directive mandate
the setting up of an independent board of software experts to
validate this substantial advance over the status quo as the EPO
itself clearly doesn't bother. This would save substantial litigation
costs to EU SME's, thus saving the EU economy hundreds of millions of
euro (and only costing very little for the independent board in
comparison).
Since the scope of the directive prevents altering EPO rules, one is
prevented from being more radical. We need the EPO to be incorporated
into the EU structure because it is not accountable as it stands and
that seems silly to me. Since that seems politically unacceptable,
the independent board looks a good idea to me - first steps in
replacing the EPO.
Cheers,
Niall
One thing I've not really seen disccused much, in the context of
software patents, is the reduction of physical processes to mathematical
representations. I have this troubling feeling that this forces us to
allow software patents, or not have any patents whatsoever.
Consider that all, save a few, physical processes and biological
processes can be reduced to a series of math forms which express the
process. Indeed, in the quantam world only the math forms exist, as the
empirical status is not quite there.
To extend this, most of us would probably argue that software is an
extension of such math forms* (where logic is included as such a math).
So the question I've never actually seen addressed is, "What is a
software patent really?". At what point does something stop being a
mathematical representation of a physical process and become a strictly
"soft" program?
If biological or quantam computing becomes a reality (ie, a more
functional reality), is the line between software and
physical/biological process any longer clear enough to make a distinction?
*Those parts which are not math forms are surely physical processes,
which then in turn could be reduced to alternate math forms.
--
edA-qa mort-ora-y
Idea Architect
http://disemia.com/