FSFE-IE February 2004

fsfe-ie@lists.fsfe.org

19 participants
32 discussions

Nuala Ahern MEP - against softpat directive
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 07 Feb '04

07 Feb '04

While inviting Irish MEPs to a meeting at the European Parliament next week in Strasbourg on the IPRE directive, I came across a press release from Nuala Ahern, Green MEP on how she's against software patents and voted against the softpat directive last year. The Greens are an influential political group in Parliament. Nuala is not standing for re-election in June 2004, so perhaps she can burn her boats before she leaves!How about meeting up with her to discuss strategy? http://www.nualaahern.com/releases/release2303.htm Teresa ---------- Teresa Hackett 114 Cedar House Mespil Estate, Sussex Road Dublin 4, Ireland Email: teresahackett(a)eircom.net Dutch Mobile: +316 523 63486 (until 19.3.2004) NEW! Irish Mobile +353 87 6253768 ----------

3 2

Jan 29th draft of IP Enforcement directive
by James Heald 07 Feb '04

07 Feb '04

Text of the latest (Jan 29th) Council of Ministers draft for the Enforcement Directive is now up at: http://wiki.ael.be/uploads/IPRE-Council-Jan29.html Unlike the previous Dec 12th draft, which was apparently never treated as a serious basis for discussion, the Jan 29th draft is a serious attempt by the Irish Presidency to capture mainstream opinion of the Parliament, the Commission, and Member States government. Both the Parliament working group and the Member States working group met this week to discuss further drafting issues; but the overall shape of the Jan 29th draft should be treated as potentially very close to the shape of the final text. EDRI and FFII will be making a joint presentation on the Directive to MEPs in Strasbourg on Wednesday. Ideally we would like to finalise a position by tomorrow (Sunday) night, so that we can try to get a bandwagon rolling in the Parliament from Monday onwards. FIPR and IP-Justice are on the case too, but it would be good to have more eyeballs on this. How much of the powerful criticism of the Directive has been taken into account; and how much is still valid, and should be pointed up ? Resources and Links: http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/IPRProposalDirectiveInfoPage Preliminary comparison by Robin Gross of the new Council draft against the original Directive text and the text earlier passed by the Parliament's JURI committee (nb preliminary version -- an updated version will be going up soon on the IP Justice CODE website). http://www.ffii.org.uk/ip_enforce/IPJ_analysis.pdf http://www.ffii.org.uk/ip_enforce/IPJ_analysis.html The HTML file is smaller, but due to a weird bug I'm getting a lot with FTP recently, the transfer was truncated, and the last page or so on "technical devices" is missing (My fault for still being stuck on Windows XP!) The UK Patent Office has been so busy working for the meetings in Brussels on the Directive, it hasn't had time to publish even the raw returns from its official public Consultation on the Directive, but some of them can be pulled off the web, eg with this Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22Inte… It would be great if somebody could put together first a list of links to the actual responses, and then maybe a brief summary of the positions. James Heald, FFII-UK. _______________________________________________ Free-sklyarov-uk mailing list Free-sklyarov-uk(a)xenoclast.org http://mailman.xenoclast.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov-uk

1 0

Small detail for the record: Response from Senator Mary Henry
by Malcolm Tyrrell 07 Feb '04

07 Feb '04

For the record: I received an e-mail from Mary Henry's office thanking us for the e-mail[1] about the Info Soc directive. I had forwarded her the e-mail because someone on the list had said she'd been asking questions about it in the Senate. I had a quick look at the changes to the copyright law[2]. As Teresa said, it looks just like the draft. Sorry I haven't been involved in recent discussions (although there was one I'm rather glad I wasn't involved in). Something was up with my e-mail. Seems to be fixed now. Malcohol. [1] http://www.ifso.info/documents/eucd-dete-00.html [2] http://www.entemp.ie/tcmr/ipuwork.htm

1 0

Re: [ox-en] Ethics / Practice WAS Germ of a new form of society
by Adam Moran 06 Feb '04

06 Feb '04

Hola ... [ Massive snip over multiple threads on Oekonox since Niall and I went off for counseling after we nearly flamed on IFSO [1]] Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 02:04:11PM -0000, Niall Douglas wrote: >>Software must be freed for the good of mankind. > > > Amen. I think we would now extend this further to include women also; come on lads you need to clean up your language ! [2] ... And we now further this movement: Niall wrote: I wrote: >> What are the boundaries of the ecosystem in your mind ? > > > None. Just lots of ecosystems inside ecosystems within other > ecosystems which is as the universe is: fully recursive. > > >>> ... and another ... >>> >>> What are the boundaries of the ecosystem in my mind ? > > > Also none. Indeed my mind and your mind are inextricably linked and > the same, but also totally separate and different. The inevitable > consequence of recursion :) Strange I got there via metaphysics and Niall got there via programming lingo ? Would you have thought that at all, at all ? (inextricable and explicable ... we read the same thoughts and work on the same jobs.) Hope this helps. -- Adam M P.S. Sorry Mel to "bury you in a 'digest' edition" at the time of [1]. [1] http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/2003-September/000252.html Ciaran thanks for your good wishes off-list; it was the straw that broke the camel's back re: shedding the rest of my copy-right - I never did feel easy about owning stuff I hadn't written - mindst ya, I'm going to flog it to who evers got the cash on the way out - Mother of Perl, I wouldn't trade you for the whole world :) [2] http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=clean+language&b…

1 0

Patent letter #3
by Ciaran O'Riordan 05 Feb '04

05 Feb '04

I'm still up to my eyes in other projects, but here's a first draft of a patent letter: Comments welcome, nitpicking not necessary, full rewrite possible. Dear you, I am writing to you on behalf of Irish Free Software Organisation (IFSO) regarding EU Directive COD/2002/0047 "on the patentability of computer implemented innovations". On September 24th 2003, we were pleased that the plenary voted for a set of amendments which clearly exclude software innovations from the patent system. We were particularly glad that this majority included all of the 11 Irish MEPs that voted. I ask that Irelands representation on the Commission uphold the decision of the Irish MEPs and the plenary. Below, I will outline why this position is imperative to protect competition and innovation in software and for the economy of Ireland. competition =========== For new software to compete with the market leader, it must be compatible. That is, it must be able to read and write data in the same format as the market leader, and it must present a recognisable interface. When software packages are not compatible, users of one software package become locked-in as the hassle of migration increases. The need for compatibility is currently a major problem in the software industry as market leaders change data formats regularly, thus making it hard for the competition to maintain compatibility. If the market leader could patent a technique required to read or write it's data, competition could become all but impractical. At present, anti-competitive practices can sometimes by tacked by the EU or by national governments, but software patents would introduce a legal tool for holding back competition, free from government regulation. Software already has legal protection in the form of copyright. Copyright law is a good fit because it costs nothing to use, requires no processing time, and it doesn't restrict others from independent development. Innovation ========== Software is very easy to develop because there are no material or legal restrictions on it's development at the moment. This ease of development has made it possible for new businesses and even individuals to write highly complex software packages incorporating thousands of ideas. Some will be new innovative ideas, but most will be known ideas, or ideas required for compatibility. If known ideas were to become ownable, individuals and new business would find it hard to write new software without infringing patents. The traditional incremental development of software would become a legal minefield, and many software innovations would never reach the market. Large businesses could also face endless law suits due to the massive number of ideas incorporated in their packages, and development would be slowed down as the software developers of these companies would have to split their time between development and researching patents so as not to leave the company open to such law suits. In some fields of development, it is hoped that the barriers created by patents will lead to new innovative solutions to problems (lateral innovation), but when trying to read or write data in an arbitrary format, there are many situations where only one technique can be used. Thus, lateral innovation will not be encouraged, because it would be of no use. The Irish economy ================= The revenue generated from patents will be distributed roughly according to how many patents each country owns. Ireland is unlikely to own more than 1% of software patents, so 99% of patent royalties from Irish companies will be leaving Ireland, mostly going to the US. This "patent tax" may prove too high for many small, medium, or new businesses, and would certainly be too high for individuals. Irish software developers will have to either license the patents or avoid them. If they license, they will be maintaining a stream of royalties leaving the country. If they avoid the patents, (something that is very difficult, or sometimes impossible) we will not be producing competitive software. The security of our government, industry, and citizens is increasingly dependent on software. For this reason, Ireland must retain control of it's software systems, and it must be permitted to develop it's own. Learning from others ==================== When the US ruled that software patents would be legal, they didn't have the benefit of being able to study how other economies handled software patents. Recently, more than a decade after software became patentable, the US Federal Trade Commission have released a damning report on what effect they have seen with software patentability. [insert comment about FTC report] The US is seeing a new problem in the last three years in the form of IP Law firms, specialising in "monetising software patent assets". The firms buy unused software patents, and monetise their asset by sueing whoever they can. The typical targets small businesses, ones that can't afford to defend themselves in court. They can make a lot of money from sueing software development companies, and they face no risk because they don't development any software of their own. Their business is legal in the US, but it is having terrible effects on software development. In contrast, the one software innovation that has produced the greatest social benefit in the last decade, is the World Wide Web. This is an unpatented innovation, which has fostered the highest levels of competition and innovation in the history of computing. Free Software, also known as "Libre Software", or "Open Source" =============================================================== Free Software refers to software that comes with the freedom to run, copy, study, modify, and redistribute. Free Software cannot require that royalties are paid to a developer, but anyone can charge for services such as customisation, distribution, setup, and support. The European Commissions' Information Society Initiative recently released a report on "Free / Open Source Software F/OSS", which says: ``On the provider side, F/OSS creates new opportunities for software and service providers, which may be a unique opportunity for the European software industry - somehow this may be a proverbial "second and last chance".'' Because royalties cannot be required, Free Software developers would find it nearly impossible to get a license to use a patent. Software patents could kill this new European software industry before it has a chance. -- Ciaran O'Riordan - http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/

9 42

Need campaign for MS EU anti-trust licences to be Free, not RAND
by James Heald 03 Feb '04

03 Feb '04

I suggest there is a campaign here we need to urgently get off the ground, asap, right across Europe. As has been all over the press recently, http://news.google.com/news?q=mario+monti+microsoft the EU competition directorate is very keen to settle with Microsoft before May, so as not to have to co-ordinate with 10 more accession states which would make everything much more complicated. Mostly the case is about what to do with Windows being tied with Windows Media Player; but as the Economist reported, there is also the allegation > that Microsoft was trying to extend its desktop monopoly into the market for workgroup servers (file, print, mail and web servers) by keeping secret the communications protocols that enable its desktop and server products to talk to each other. “Without such information, alternative server software would be denied a level playing field, as it would be artificially deprived of the opportunity to compete with Microsoft's products on technical merits alone,” [as] the commission warned in 2001. According to the Economist, Microsoft is facing a fine, specific remedies over Windows Media Player, and also > Microsoft would be required to license its server-communications protocols to rivals on a “reasonable and non-discriminatory” basis. This is consistent with the settlement that Microsoft reached in America, which also requires it to license some of its protocols. This despite the fact that in the States, the licensing program became a total non-event because of the conditions Microsoft imposed: > Critics had complained that its previous licensing terms were so complicated that only 11 companies had signed up for them... Following a review of the progress of the American settlement, on January 23rd Microsoft agreed to simplify and extend its licensing programme to encourage wider use. After the announcement, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who is overseeing the American settlement, declared herself satisfied with the company's efforts to comply with the settlement. For more detail, see this IDG story at: http://www.itworld.com/Man/2699/040120mslicensing/ I suggest that there is a need for an urgent all-Europe campaign that the protocols should *not* made available RAND, but that the measures can only have any chance of being an effective remedy if the protocols are released Public Domain, no strings attached. Cf, for example, the outcome of the US antitrust remedies, where developers on WINE to avoid any chance glimpse of the MS documents for fear that they might be tainted by the license conditions. Presumably over here the EU measures are intended to prevent MS bullying SAMBA. The protocol information must be released Free, or it will be completely useless. It would also be very useful in the argument over Article 6a (Interoperability) in the Patents Directive, if we could get the Competition directorate to understand why Free rather than RAND makes all the difference. The Economist even suggests it might be in MS's own long term best interest: > In other words, Microsoft may some day conclude that the costs of constant regulatory battles—legal costs, fines, bad publicity, and bad relationships with governments—exceed the benefits of its Windows monopoly... One approach would be to hand some of its Windows protocols over to an independent standards body... This seems unimaginable now. But unless governments find the political will and legal arguments needed to break the firm up, it may be the only way its legal battles will ever end. _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list Fsfe-uk(a)gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk

1 0

Re: [Fsfe-ie] RTE Morning Ireland piece on MyDoom virus
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 03 Feb '04

03 Feb '04

We can do both. Ireland is a small place and there's a chance he'll get invited back next time there's a virus or something to talk about. So why not ensure that he knows about IFSO, that's all. Teresa Ian Clarke <ian(a)locut.us> wrote: > I am not sure that this will achieve much to be honest, our targets > should be the media themselves, not those that feed them the > misinformation (there will never be a shortage of FUDders). > > Ian. > ---------- Teresa Hackett 114 Cedar House Mespil Estate, Sussex Road Dublin 4, Ireland Email: teresahackett(a)eircom.net Dutch Mobile: +316 523 63486 (until 19.3.2004) NEW! Irish Mobile +353 87 6253768 ----------

1 0

RE: [Fsfe-ie] RTE Morning Ireland piece on MyDoom virus
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 03 Feb '04

03 Feb '04

Thanks, Ben for this. I have just listened to the piece on Morning Ireland(http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0202/morningireland/morningireland5a.smil) and I do think it is worth making a fuss about. And a good opportunity to promote IFSO as well ;-) I think that IFSO should contact William Campbell (http://www.buatraining.com/) to ask on what basis he made the claim that the "open system" (sic) community is behind the virus and offering to have a discussion with him. Even SCO say "We do not know the origins or reasons for this attack, although we have our suspicions.". At least he will know about IFSO and will be cautious about making such claims on national radio in future. Could also send a note to MI refuting the claim and explaining the ethos of free software. I'm not the person to do this, perhaps one of the committee?? Teresa > Well, possibly, if it did distract attention from the >real purpose of the worm. But you're right; this is all >heavily speculative. Maybe it's not worth making a fuss about. > > Ben. > _______________________________________________ > fsfe-ie(a)fsfeurope.org mailing list > List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie > Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie > ---------- Teresa Hackett 114 Cedar House Mespil Estate, Sussex Road Dublin 4, Ireland Email: teresahackett(a)eircom.net Dutch Mobile: +316 523 63486 (until 19.3.2004) NEW! Irish Mobile +353 87 6253768 ----------

3 2

RTE Morning Ireland piece on MyDoom virus
by Ben North 03 Feb '04

03 Feb '04

On RTE Radio One's "Morning Ireland" show this morning, at about 0750, there was a piece about the MyDoom virus. They interviewed some 'expert' about this, and the expert said that in his opinion the virus was most likely written by some open-source supporters. He said a few other annoying things as well, but would it be appropriate for IFSO to write a quick email to RTE saying that while the expert is of course entitled to his opinion, other sources of information point more at a Russian criminal origin, aiming to use the machines to send spam. The SCO/Microsoft DOS in this case would be a decoy. RUSSIA was 80 per cent likely to be the origin of the Mydoom computer worm, which has become the worst ever internet epidemic, a top Russian anti-virus firm said today. [...] An expert from Kaspersky Labs, Alexander Gostiyev, told a press conference in Moscow the creators of the virus were not aiming to disrupt internet traffic but use infected computers to distribute unsolicited junk mail. --- http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,8543890,00.html RTE put up the individual pieces from Morning Ireland shows at http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland.html but this morning's isn't there yet. Might be worth making sure the ifso.info website is back up before sending anything though. Also, should we have a "press(a)ifso.info" email address to send things like this out from? Ben.

4 4

website problem?
by Ian Clarke 02 Feb '04

02 Feb '04

Visiting http://ifso.info/ I now get "Computing Society Discussion Board" - is there a problem? Ian.

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

FSFE-IE February 2004