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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 21 Jan 2004 at 19:26, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
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.
Quote Tim Berner Lees on what he said about patents seeing as you're mentioning the WWW.
Cheers, Niall
"Niall Douglas" s_fsfeurope2@nedprod.com writes:
Quote Tim Berner Lees on what he said about patents seeing as you're mentioning the WWW.
will do.
Just out of interest, http://3d17.org/ was designed to help with exactly this kind of thing - I know it needs a lot of work, but do you not find it usable?
If not, perhaps IFSO should set up a CMS or wiki? I recommend http://quickcms.sf.net/ (another one of my crazy projects ;).
Ian.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
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.
Ian Clarke ian@locut.us writes:
http://3d17.org/ was designed to help with exactly this kind of thing
- I know it needs a lot of work, but do you not find it usable?
Usable? I don't even find the license! :) (is it Free Software, or proprietary?)
perhaps IFSO should set up a CMS or wiki?... http://quickcms.sf.net/ (another one of my crazy projects ;).
We had a wiki, but it died of boredom. A wiki could be good, but not for a letter.
It's a text document, and I'm looking for suggestions & comments, so a mailing list is a good fit.
I haven't seen quickcms, I'll take a proper look when we get around to setting up a cms.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Ian Clarke ian@locut.us writes:
http://3d17.org/ was designed to help with exactly this kind of thing
- I know it needs a lot of work, but do you not find it usable?
Usable? I don't even find the license! :) (is it Free Software, or proprietary?)
Well, its a website, not software, so it doesn't need a license (does Google have a license?).
Ian.
A TOS is a kind of licence, right? :)
http://www.google.ie/terms_of_service.html
adam
-----Original Message----- From: fsfe-ie-bounces@fsfeurope.org [mailto:fsfe-ie-bounces@fsfeurope.org]On Behalf Of Ian Clarke Sent: 22 January 2004 13:18 To: Ciaran O'Riordan; fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org Subject: Re: [Fsfe-ie] Patent letter #3
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Ian Clarke ian@locut.us writes:
http://3d17.org/ was designed to help with exactly this kind of thing
- I know it needs a lot of work, but do you not find it usable?
Usable? I don't even find the license! :) (is it Free Software, or proprietary?)
Well, its a website, not software, so it doesn't need a license (does Google have a license?).
Ian. _______________________________________________ fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
Ian Clarke writes:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
(is it Free Software, or proprietary?)
Well, its a website, not software, so it doesn't need a license (does Google have a license?).
IFSO hasn't asked anyone to use google, or any other secret software, on their own machines, or over a network.
We could also debate: Is it ok for ifso to point people to web pages served by proprietary webservers? Is it ok to read email sent by a proprietary mail server? But I think these questions are for pedants.
For anyone that's interested: ifso.info is served by GNU/Linux + Apache, it's pages are created with Emacs and sed over OpenSSH, and it's tested with Mozilla, Konqueror, Lynx, Links, and W3M. The site pages will soon be hosted on sv.gnu.org, using GNU/Linux, Apache, Savannah, CVS, and ViewCVS and will be pulled from there by a regular cron job. Each page links to validator.w3.org, which uses software released under an FSF approved license.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Ian Clarke writes:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: Well, its a website, not software, so it doesn't need a license (does Google have a license?).
IFSO hasn't asked anyone to use google, or any other secret software, on their own machines, or over a network.
Sure you are, unless the BIOS of your web server is free software.
I think you may be painting yourself into a rather uncomfortable philosophical corner. There is a big difference between using software on your own machine and using it "over a network".
AFAIK there is nothing in the Free Software philosophy that demands that people disclose the source code to their software UNLESS they are distributing the compiled binaries.
In the case of 3D17.org, the binary stays on my server - the only part of it that runs on the user's computer is the HTML it generates and the user is free to look at its source code.
As such, I don't believe that not publishing source code of software that only runs on my computer contradicts the philosophy of the free software movement.
Ian.
Ian Clarke ian@locut.us writes:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
IFSO hasn't asked anyone to use google, or any other secret software, on their own machines, or over a network.
Sure you are, unless the BIOS of your web server is free software.
This extrapolates to "You can't be perfect, why bother trying."
I'd prefer an FS BIOS, but I don't see it as imperative. One grey area is not a reason to accept other grey areas.
In the case of 3D17.org, the binary stays on my server - the only part of it that runs on the user's computer is the HTML it generates and the user is free to look at its source code.
IFSO will not ask you to run secret or proprietary software for us.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Ian Clarke ian@locut.us writes:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
IFSO hasn't asked anyone to use google, or any other secret software, on their own machines, or over a network.
Sure you are, unless the BIOS of your web server is free software.
This extrapolates to "You can't be perfect, why bother trying."
I am not sure whose standard of perfection you aspire to, but I don't think its that of the free software movement.
I'd prefer an FS BIOS, but I don't see it as imperative. One grey area is not a reason to accept other grey areas.
It isn't a grey area at all. Free software requires the availability of source code to the persons running the binaries, it does not require the release of all source code ever written. It is not immoral to keep a secret, unless the secret is what you are making another person's computer do.
In the case of 3D17.org, the binary stays on my server - the only part of it that runs on the user's computer is the HTML it generates and the user is free to look at its source code.
IFSO will not ask you to run secret or proprietary software for us.
It isn't a secret from me, I have the source code.
Ian.
You've justified IFSO using this software because it fulfils two criteria : 1/ IFSO wouldn't be running the software - you would 2/ the source isn't a secret to you
By these criteria, it would be ok for IFSO to accept an offer from MS of shell accounts on MS Windows boxes. (or whatever their version of a shell account is)
The crux of these criteria is: who's "running the binaries"? a/ The person that started the service (you in this case) b/ The person that's interactively executing commands (albeit over a network) (ifso contributors in this case)
If a, MS shell accounts are ok. If b, http requests to a proprietary webserver are not ok. Since the only possible answers give bogus results, the question must be wrong, so the criteria are wrong.
To get back to the original point:
Should IFSO use 3D17?
Well, the first thing we face is: "You have to let me run the software because I own it and no one's getting a copy".
Surely that's not the FS ethic.
Firstly, I hope you don't think I am being overly argumentative in continuing this debate, I think it is important to be clear on what an organization's philosophy does and does not imply, and besides, debating is fun! Onward...
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
You've justified IFSO using this software because it fulfils two criteria : 1/ IFSO wouldn't be running the software - you would 2/ the source isn't a secret to you
By these criteria, it would be ok for IFSO to accept an offer from MS of shell accounts on MS Windows boxes. (or whatever their version of a shell account is)
If having shell accounts on MS Windows boxes helped to advance the cause of IFSO in some way, for example, to help us learn more about Windows such that we can make it easier for Windows users to migrate to a free operating system, then yes, I think we would be failing the IFSO were we to refuse remote shell accounts on a Windows box, and I certainly don't think such a refusal would be justified by the free software philosophy.
The crux of these criteria is: who's "running the binaries"? a/ The person that started the service (you in this case) b/ The person that's interactively executing commands (albeit over a network) (ifso contributors in this case)
If a, MS shell accounts are ok. If b, http requests to a proprietary webserver are not ok. Since the only possible answers give bogus results, the question must be wrong, so the criteria are wrong.
The crux of this discussion is who owns the hardware that is being controlled by the software. I believe the philosophy of free software is that you should have access to the source code to the software that *you* run on *your* computer, and the right to modify and share your modifications. The question of whether *you* should have access to the source code of software *I* run on *my* computer is not addressed by the free software philosophy.
In the case of using a remote website, the only extent to which my software controls your computer is in that it sends HTML to your web browser which your web browser then renders. You are completely free to look at this HTML to see what it is making your browser do, and are even free to modify the way it is rendered (assuming you are using a free browser). Thus, I don't think the free software philosophy demands that I disclose my source code to you any more than it demands that I disclose my bank account password or my shoe size.
To get back to the original point:
Should IFSO use 3D17?
Well, the first thing we face is: "You have to let me run the software because I own it and no one's getting a copy".
I am not telling you that you have to do anything, I am suggesting that you use a tool that may benefit the IFSO. You are saying "If you want the IFSO to benefit from this tool then you have to release your source code". I am not suggesting that you allow secret software to control your computer, and therefore I do not think your demand can be justified in terms of the ethics of free software.
Surely that's not the FS ethic.
I think that it is very important that people involved in the IFSO (indeed any organisation) be extremely cautious about "ethic creep". If your personal opinion is that source code should never ever be kept secret, then fine, but I don't believe that position is implied by the free software philosophy.
Ian.
Open source advocate Bruce Perens tells BBC technology correspondent Clark Boyd why the real threat to Linux and the open source movement is not from the SCO lawsuits, but from software patents.
adam beecher wrote:
Open source advocate Bruce Perens tells BBC technology correspondent Clark Boyd why the real threat to Linux and the open source movement is not from the SCO lawsuits, but from software patents.
I really don't think he did a very good job :-( Since some of us may well find ourselves in a position to speak to the media on these issues I think it is helpful to think about how we can best present our arguments, and part of this should be to critique the efforts of others.
Bruce opened his argument against software patents with:
Software patents that are being accepted are not necessarily inventions, their definitions are overbroad.
Yawn.
I think it is essential in any debate to state your case clearly and memorably at the outset. This sentence completely understates the issue. Something like:
"If permitted in the EU, software patents could slow down or even halt today's rapid pace of innovation in software."
...might have been a better start. Having caught their attention with this bold statement, he could then justify it in a top-down manner, often with the help of the interviewer since their follow-on questions will be suggested by the opening claim. Generally top-down arguments are much more effective when explaining issues to those with short attention spans (eg. the general public).
Bruce does make some good points, such as the prospect of it being illegal to innovate without the permission of large software companies, but I fear that this claim is made too late in the interview.
Ian.
Ian Clarke ian@locut.us writes:
I think it is important to be clear on what an organization's philosophy does and does not imply, and besides, debating is fun!
of course :) onward indeed...
I believe the philosophy of free software is that you should have access to the source code to the software that *you* run on *your* computer
By this claim, if in twenty years time all computing is done via Free Software thin clients accessing unknown or proprietary software on other computers, the Free Software movement will have succeeded.
Your interpretation of the FS philosophy must therefore be incorrect since that is obviously not the aim of the FS movement.
If having shell accounts on MS Windows boxes helped to advance the cause of IFSO in some way, [...] I think we would be failing the IFSO were we to refuse remote shell accounts on a Windows box,
Most Samba developers have MS Windows boxes, and the GNOME hackers in RedHat have a shared MS Windows box. I think this is ok because they are working to make freedom more accessible to others, and this accessibility cannot be achieved without access to certain pieces of proprietary software.
Similarly, 20 years ago when there was no Free Software operating system, Stallman used Unix to write GNU.
So I accept that there can be justifications for the use of proprietary software, but these situations are so rare that we can ignore them until they happen, and we can decide on a case by case basis if they do.
I think that it is very important that people involved in the IFSO (indeed any organisation) be extremely cautious about "ethic creep".
Agreed.
The current system that IFSO uses for collaborating on documents is all Free Software (GNU Mailman, Python, GNU/Linux, Exim).
You've suggested moving to a system that involves Free Software thin clients accessing undisclosed software. I see that as negative ethic creep, and there is no necessity for the creep.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
I believe the philosophy of free software is that you should have access to the source code to the software that *you* run on *your* computer
By this claim, if in twenty years time all computing is done via Free Software thin clients accessing unknown or proprietary software on other computers, the Free Software movement will have succeeded.
Flawed logic I'm afraid. Consider this equivalent statement:
"If the goal of Christian Aid is to ensure that there is no poverty or hunger in the world, and if in 20 years Earth was hit by a comet leaving everyone on the planet dead, then Christian Aid will have succeeded."
Your interpretation of the FS philosophy must therefore be incorrect since that is obviously not the aim of the FS movement.
"Your interpretation of the goal of Christian Aid must therefore be incorrect since it is not the aim of Christian Aid to ram a comet into the Earth".
Pointing out the potential for an undesirable scenario which doesn't specifically conflict with the goal of an organization does not imply that this goal must be extended to oppose that undesirable scenario. To do so would eventually result in all organizations trying to do everything.
So I accept that there can be justifications for the use of proprietary software, but these situations are so rare that we can ignore them until they happen, and we can decide on a case by case basis if they do.
Yes, and it is your decision in this case that is at the heart of this discussion.
The current system that IFSO uses for collaborating on documents is all Free Software (GNU Mailman, Python, GNU/Linux, Exim).
You've suggested moving to a system that involves Free Software thin clients accessing undisclosed software. I see that as negative ethic creep, and there is no necessity for the creep.
The software is not undisclosed to the person on whose hardware it runs - that is all that matters relative to the philosophy of the Free Software movement. Your desire to extend this philosophy is akin to the leader of Christian Aid, on the basis of my imaginary argument above, spending some or all of Christian Aid's money researching ways to deflect comets.
I would argue that this would be mission creep for Christian Aid, just as your desire to encourage me to disclose the source code to software I run on my computer is mission creep for IFSO.
Ian.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 11:50:33AM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
I believe the philosophy of free software is that you should have access to the source code to the software that *you* run on *your* computer
By this claim, if in twenty years time all computing is done via Free Software thin clients accessing unknown or proprietary software on other computers, the Free Software movement will have succeeded.
Flawed logic I'm afraid. Consider this equivalent statement:
"If the goal of Christian Aid is to ensure that there is no poverty or hunger in the world, and if in 20 years Earth was hit by a comet leaving everyone on the planet dead, then Christian Aid will have succeeded."
If Ciaran changes his statement to
"I believe the philosophy of free software is that you should have access to the source code to the software that *you* run on *your* computer and that you should be able to do all your necessary computing tasks on your own computer."
Then I think you cannot come up with a Christian Aid equivalent,
F
"All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates."
- Woody Allen
Fergal Daly wrote:
If Ciaran changes his statement to
"I believe the philosophy of free software is that you should have access to the source code to the software that *you* run on *your* computer and that you should be able to do all your necessary computing tasks on your own computer."
Then I think you cannot come up with a Christian Aid equivalent,
You are correct, but I could point out that the second component of that philosophy would preclude use of the Internet (among other things).
In other words, it would be incredibly dumb, and it most certainly isn't the philosophy of the free software movement.
Ian.
On Monday 26 January 2004 14:34, Ian Clarke wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
If Ciaran changes his statement to
"I believe the philosophy of free software is that you should have access
to
the source code to the software that *you* run on *your* computer and that you should be able to do all your necessary computing tasks on your own computer."
Then I think you cannot come up with a Christian Aid equivalent,
You are correct, but I could point out that the second component of that philosophy would preclude use of the Internet (among other things).
It would only preclude the use of non FS services (which was what started this discussion) which of course is a large part of the consumer web but it's far from the entirety of the net.
Strict FSF free-softwareism is not an easy path, it is not designed for short term practicality. The long term goal is the freedom of all software.
and it most certainly isn't the philosophy of the free software movement.
I'm not sure about it personally but it most certainly _is_ the philosophy of the FSF.
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods
--- It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly "private" use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. We are thinking about doing something like this in GPL version 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet. ---
You could says it's not the philosophy of some parts of the the Open Source movement but if you're ever trapped in a lift with RMS you better not say FS when you mean OS :-)
F
Fergal Daly wrote:
On Monday 26 January 2004 14:34, Ian Clarke wrote: I'm not sure about it personally but it most certainly _is_ the philosophy of the FSF.
I stand corrected, in which case I disagree with whoever wrote that FAQ answer.
There are many things which might benefit the public interest were they not secret. For example, if my e-gold password was not secret then my money could be distributed to the masses, which would probably benefit the public interest. Does this mean that the FSF should advocate the disclosure of my e-gold password? Should the FSF refuse to use the software of anyone who doesn't disclose their e-gold password?
The thing that makes source code different to my e-gold password is that source code controls what my computer does. I have a right to know what software is doing to my computer, just as I have a right to know what a plumber is doing to the pipes in my apartment. But I have no more right to know what a plumber is doing to my friend's pipes than I do to know his bank PIN. This is true even if I occasionally visit my friend's apartment.
The argument that I should know what someone else's software is doing with my hardware is strong and defensible, but the argument that I have a moral right to know what someone else's software is is doing with someone else's hardware (and they have a moral obligation to disclose it) is isomorphic to arguing that nobody should have any secrets about anything - which is silly.
Ian.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Ian Clarke wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
On Monday 26 January 2004 14:34, Ian Clarke wrote: I'm not sure about it personally but it most certainly _is_ the philosophy of the FSF.
I stand corrected, in which case I disagree with whoever wrote that FAQ answer.
There are many things which might benefit the public interest were they not secret. For example, if my e-gold password was not secret then my money could be distributed to the masses, which would probably benefit the public interest. Does this mean that the FSF should advocate the disclosure of my e-gold password? Should the FSF refuse to use the software of anyone who doesn't disclose their e-gold password?
The thing that makes source code different to my e-gold password is that source code controls what my computer does. I have a right to know what software is doing to my computer, just as I have a right to know what a plumber is doing to the pipes in my apartment. But I have no more right to know what a plumber is doing to my friend's pipes than I do to know his bank PIN. This is true even if I occasionally visit my friend's apartment.
The argument that I should know what someone else's software is doing with my hardware is strong and defensible, but the argument that I have a moral right to know what someone else's software is is doing with someone else's hardware (and they have a moral obligation to disclose it) is isomorphic to arguing that nobody should have any secrets about anything - which is silly.
On the other side, the creation of the Affero License was to close a hole in the GNU GPL in case of distribution. As more software (not directly on your computer) is running outside the user classical scope but for the use (you know well the 'ASPware' stuff) of the user itself, the user should have access to the software (of course in the the case that the software claims to be free software).
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 11:26:02AM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
On Monday 26 January 2004 14:34, Ian Clarke wrote: I'm not sure about it personally but it most certainly _is_ the philosophy of the FSF.
I stand corrected, in which case I disagree with whoever wrote that FAQ answer.
I do somewhat agree with that FAQ answer. I think, if I have written GPL code and someone else has improved it and is letting other people use that improved version remotely then I think those improvements should be available to all in source form. Otherwise, the person is taking my GPL work and publicly benefitting without giving anything back.
There are many things which might benefit the public interest were they not secret. For example, if my e-gold password was not secret then my money could be distributed to the masses, which would probably benefit the public interest. Does this mean that the FSF should advocate the disclosure of my e-gold password? Should the FSF refuse to use the software of anyone who doesn't disclose their e-gold password?
Your password would not benefit the public interest because then you would not keep any money in your account, in fact it would be a net loss as now people would be forced to transfer money to you by some less convenient means. Property is only valuable to society because people can be sure that what's theirs is theirs and won't suddenly disappear. Generally, me owning a chair has no impact on where you can sit. Things are very different with software. If chairs were like software, I could sell you a chair and tell you you're not allowed sit with your legs crossed and that you'll have to pay extra to swing back on 2 legs. The other big difference is that software chairs have almost zero marginal cost, so I can get a monopoly on software chairs much more easily than with real chairs.
I think most people would agree that this extra control and the ease with which a monopoly can develop are not good for society. It's a question of how bad are they. The FSF believe that they're so bad for society that users should have the same rights as owners.
The argument that I should know what someone else's software is doing with my hardware is strong and defensible, but the argument that I have a moral right to know what someone else's software is is doing with someone else's hardware (and they have a moral obligation to disclose it) is isomorphic to arguing that nobody should have any secrets about anything - which is silly.
It's not isomorphic.
Keeping passwords secret...
Good: we get a trustable system of property transfer Bad: ??? (assuming you believe in private property there is no actual bad here, people just wouldn't keep any money in there accounts)
has a very minor impact bad effect (we don't get your limited money) and a very large good effect on society.
Keeping source code secret...
Good: companies can take a bigger reward for their work, thus encouraging more work to be done.
Bad: if Word was free then the number of people who could save 300 quid is effectively unlimited, also people could customise the software to meet their needs and never worry about being held to ransom by a monopoly
The FSF would argue that the bad actually outweighs the good in the second case. It might be true but it's not good news for the dot commers,
F
Good: companies can take a bigger reward for their work, thus encouraging more work to be done.
Bad: if Word was free then the number of people who could save 300 quid is effectively unlimited, also people could customise the software to meet their needs and never worry about being held to ransom by a monopoly
The FSF would argue that the bad actually outweighs the good in the second case. It might be true but it's not good news for the dot commers,
I don't believe this to be the arguement of the FSF. I don't really care much for Word and I don't think R.M.S. cares because you spend €300 on it, but because it is non-Free Software. I don't much care for OpenOffice either, but because it is released under a Free Software licence the Free Software philosophy would allow OpenOffice to charge €300 for it.
On another note. Ian's egold password is personal information (hopefully protected by legislation) and is not source code. Source code could be argued to belong to the commons.
-- Thank you, Aidan Delaney.
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Aidan Delaney wrote:
On another note. Ian's egold password is personal information (hopefully protected by legislation) and is not source code. Source code could be argued to belong to the commons.
What is the fundamental thing that is different about source code that means it should be part of the commons, and any other piece of information, which shouldn't? How do you draw the line?
My answer to this question is that source code should only be part of the commons when it is in control of OTHER PEOPLE'S computers. If it is just running on my hardware I have no obligation to disclose what it is doing.
Ian.
My answer to this question is that source code should only be part of the commons when it is in control of OTHER PEOPLE'S computers. If it is just running on my hardware I have no obligation to disclose what it is doing.
I accept your point and ask what about services? If my non-Free software controls your services (Banking etc...) how is this different from me controlling your computer, considering computers are just tools to use services.
In case I'm not being as clear as I can be, let me restate: You state (rightly) that there is no difference between data. Examples of data being my private gpg key, Acmesoft source code or a text file containing a Yeats poem.
At the point where the Acmesoft source code starts controlling my computer, Free Software philosophy states that the user should be entitled to view the source code.
I'm extrapolating a little and stating that when your source code (in compiled form etc...) starts controlling my services, that I would like to see the source code (I'm not sure of the FSF line on this).
It's clear (to me, and I have been wrong before) that your source code (again, compiled, interpreted...) running on your machine is your private data, like your egold password or my gpg key. When your source code is running and controlling my services I don't think it is your private data.
However, How and why I would still consider your egold password embedded in the source as still being your private data I'm not sure! -- Thank you, Aidan Delaney.
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Aidan Delaney wrote:
My answer to this question is that source code should only be part of the commons when it is in control of OTHER PEOPLE'S computers. If it is just running on my hardware I have no obligation to disclose what it is doing.
I accept your point and ask what about services? If my non-Free software controls your services (Banking etc...) how is this different from me controlling your computer, considering computers are just tools to use services.
Well, I think it is important to know what you mean by "your services". I am not sure that I have a right to know what goes on inside my bank, except as it directly affects my money.
For example, ff the whole thing is run by highly trained chimps I really couldn't care less provided that they don't lose my money and do the other things that a bank is supposed to do.
Were I the bank I would feel that I have no obligation to disclose that my entire operation relies on our furry friends provided my organisation does its job and does it well.
I think it has to be a question of property rights. I have a right to know what people are doing to my property, be they a plumber or the author of some software running on my computer. I think you get into very dangerous territory when you try to extend this notion to argue that I have a right to know what other people are doing with their property. Yes, if what they are doing affects me, then I have a right to know how it affects me, but that is where my right of knowledge ends.
At the point where the Acmesoft source code starts controlling my computer, Free Software philosophy states that the user should be entitled to view the source code.
No argument there.
I'm extrapolating a little and stating that when your source code (in compiled form etc...) starts controlling my services, that I would like to see the source code (I'm not sure of the FSF line on this).
This is the dangerous extrapolation I am taking about, because if you extend your right of knowledge beyond what affects you or your property, it is impossible to draw a line as to where it should stop. Before long you are arguing that nobody should have any secrets about anything.
Ian.
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:52:56PM +0000, Aidan Delaney wrote:
Good: companies can take a bigger reward for their work, thus encouraging more work to be done.
Bad: if Word was free then the number of people who could save 300 quid is effectively unlimited, also people could customise the software to meet their needs and never worry about being held to ransom by a monopoly
The FSF would argue that the bad actually outweighs the good in the second case. It might be true but it's not good news for the dot commers,
I don't believe this to be the arguement of the FSF. I don't really care much for Word and I don't think R.M.S. cares because you spend ???300 on it, but because it is non-Free Software.
RMS should (and I'd imagine does but we should really ask him) care about that 300e because it's money that could have been spent on creating or improving a free version or at the very least it would not going into the lobbying/exploiting/developing fund of the worlds largest non-free software advocate.
There are other reasons for him to care but as I explained in my reply to Ian, this was simply a counterexample to Ian's "no personal secrets" is isomorphic to "all users should get the source" statement. So conclusions about the goodness or badness of one do not automtically transfer to the other. It was not supposed to give an exhaustive analysis of why the FSF believes that they do,
F
Fergal Daly wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 11:26:02AM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
On Monday 26 January 2004 14:34, Ian Clarke wrote: I'm not sure about it personally but it most certainly _is_ the philosophy of the FSF. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods
I stand corrected, in which case I disagree with whoever wrote that FAQ answer.
I do somewhat agree with that FAQ answer. I think, if I have written GPL code and someone else has improved it and is letting other people use that improved version remotely then I think those improvements should be available to all in source form. Otherwise, the person is taking my GPL work and publicly benefitting without giving anything back.
The scenario that started this discussion, however, was not me using someone else's GPLd code on my server without redistributing modifications, it was my own code running on my server which I chose not to distribute.
There are many things which might benefit the public interest were they not secret. For example, if my e-gold password was not secret then my money could be distributed to the masses, which would probably benefit the public interest. Does this mean that the FSF should advocate the disclosure of my e-gold password? Should the FSF refuse to use the software of anyone who doesn't disclose their e-gold password?
Your password would not benefit the public interest because then you would not keep any money in your account, in fact it would be a net loss as now people would be forced to transfer money to you by some less convenient means.
I think you are somewhat missing the point of my example. Consider an alternate example - lets imagine that I am an A-list celebrity and I have a digital video of myself naked or something. Is your argument that I should not have the right to keep this information secret?
The argument that I should know what someone else's software is doing with my hardware is strong and defensible, but the argument that I have a moral right to know what someone else's software is is doing with someone else's hardware (and they have a moral obligation to disclose it) is isomorphic to arguing that nobody should have any secrets about anything - which is silly.
It's not isomorphic.
Keeping passwords secret...
Good: we get a trustable system of property transfer Bad: ??? (assuming you believe in private property there is no actual bad here, people just wouldn't keep any money in there accounts)
has a very minor impact bad effect (we don't get your limited money) and a very large good effect on society.
Keeping source code secret...
Good: companies can take a bigger reward for their work, thus encouraging more work to be done.
Bad: if Word was free then the number of people who could save 300 quid is effectively unlimited, also people could customise the software to meet their needs and never worry about being held to ransom by a monopoly
The FSF would argue that the bad actually outweighs the good in the second case. It might be true but it's not good news for the dot commers,
So your position, according to what you have just said, appears to be that nobody should be permitted to keep a secret unless it is in the public interest for them to do so?
If so, Congratulations! You are now WAY over on the wrong side of the privacy debate :-)
Ian.
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 02:23:51PM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote:
I do somewhat agree with that FAQ answer. I think, if I have written GPL code and someone else has improved it and is letting other people use that improved version remotely then I think those improvements should be available to all in source form. Otherwise, the person is taking my GPL work and publicly benefitting without giving anything back.
The scenario that started this discussion, however, was not me using someone else's GPLd code on my server without redistributing modifications, it was my own code running on my server which I chose not to distribute.
As far as I can tell, the FSF believe that all users of all programs have a moral right to the source code. They also believe that you should avoid using any software unless it is free in an FSF way.
I don't know if I agree with them fully but you said to Ciaran "If your personal opinion is that source code should never ever be kept secret, then fine, but I don't believe that position is implied by the free software philosophy." As far as I can tell, it is central to at least one rather important branch of free software philosphy.
I think a lot of FS advocates don't actually realise quite how radical RMS and the FSF are.
The argument that I should know what someone else's software is doing with my hardware is strong and defensible, but the argument that I have a moral right to know what someone else's software is is doing with someone else's hardware (and they have a moral obligation to disclose it) is isomorphic to arguing that nobody should have any secrets about anything - which is silly.
It's not isomorphic.
... example showing that they are _not_ isomorphic snipped ...
So your position, according to what you have just said, appears to be that nobody should be permitted to keep a secret unless it is in the public interest for them to do so?
No, you claimed that the 2 situations were isomorphic I was merely pointing out that they are not isomorphic. I did not say that public interest criteria _should_ be applied to every aspect of life I showed that applying public interest criteria to these 2 situations gives quite different results. Therefore they are not isomorphic.
The purpose of the example was not to express my position in any way, it was simply to (dis)prove a point.
Just in case anyone else is wondering, an "isomorphism" is kind of like a perfect analogy, it's a maths term. If 2 things are "isomorphic" then when you prove something for one of them, it is automatically true for the other.
I agree that "no personal secrets" is a bad thing but it is _not_ isomorphic to "all source code must be free for all users". If you want to argue about the second idea, then you will have to argue about it directly and avoid using analogies that are not applicable,
F
Fergal Daly wrote:
The scenario that started this discussion, however, was not me using someone else's GPLd code on my server without redistributing modifications, it was my own code running on my server which I chose not to distribute.
As far as I can tell, the FSF believe that all users of all programs have a moral right to the source code. They also believe that you should avoid using any software unless it is free in an FSF way.
It is the definition of "using" that we differ on. If your definition of "using" is that you run it on your computer, then I agree, but if your definition of using is that you have some interaction with a remote server on which it is running, then I don't.
I don't know if I agree with them fully but you said to Ciaran "If your personal opinion is that source code should never ever be kept secret, then fine, but I don't believe that position is implied by the free software philosophy." As far as I can tell, it is central to at least one rather important branch of free software philosphy.
I do not accept that it can be the considered opinion of the FSF that no software can ever be kept secret, because I don't think it is possible to make that argument for software without making it for all types of information. If you disagree with this, you will have to explain how you decide what information can be kept secret, and what information can't, and justify the distinction.
I think a lot of FS advocates don't actually realise quite how radical RMS and the FSF are.
I do, I've seen his sandals first hand ;-)
It's not isomorphic.
... example showing that they are _not_ isomorphic snipped ...
So your position, according to what you have just said, appears to be that nobody should be permitted to keep a secret unless it is in the public interest for them to do so?
No, you claimed that the 2 situations were isomorphic I was merely pointing out that they are not isomorphic.
To prove they are not isomorphic you must explain why your argument applies to software but doesn't apply to all other types of information. How do you draw a distinction, and how do you justify that distinction?
I did not say that public interest criteria _should_ be applied to every aspect of life I showed that applying public interest criteria to these 2 situations gives quite different results. Therefore they are not isomorphic.
You are arguing that public interest criteria should be applied to the secrecy of all software. I am asking why, if you believe that, the same criteria shouldn't be applied to all other types of information. If they can't, then I am asking where, how, and why you draw the line between the types of information that can't be secret, and the types that can.
I agree that "no personal secrets" is a bad thing but it is _not_ isomorphic to "all source code must be free for all users". If you want to argue about the second idea, then you will have to argue about it directly and avoid using analogies that are not applicable,
If you want to argue that software can't be kept secret, but other types of information can, then I can ask you to justify the distinction, ask you where you draw the line between what can and can't be kept secret, and why.
Ian.
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 03:46:24PM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote:
It is the definition of "using" that we differ on. If your definition of "using" is that you run it on your computer, then I agree, but if your definition of using is that you have some interaction with a remote server on which it is running, then I don't.
It's not my definition that I'm talking about. It's the FSF's and what I can find on their website implies that remote use is included and will be specifically catered for in the next edition of GPL.
I do not accept that it can be the considered opinion of the FSF that no software can ever be kept secret, because I don't think it is possible to make that argument for software without making it for all types of information. If you disagree with this, you will have to explain how you decide what information can be kept secret, and what information can't, and justify the distinction.
They don't quite say no software can ever be kept secret. They say it should not be kept secret from it's users. So they do not want your source code unless they are actually using your software. If you keep it to yourself or you manage to keep the number of users limited then they would say you have no responsibility to anyone outside that group of users.
I don't follow how this spreads to all types of information but I won't try to argue one way or the other because I am not the FSF, I am just pointing out what they have said. If you believe that these ideas are fundamentally flawed and logically leads to all information being public then either I've misrepresented the FSF's ideas or you disagree with them. That's all I'm trying to point out.
To prove they are not isomorphic you must explain why your argument applies to software but doesn't apply to all other types of information. How do you draw a distinction, and how do you justify that distinction?
No, to show 2 things are not isomorphic all I have to do is find a single thing that's true for one of them and false for the other. Here's the simplest difference I can think of "all passwords available to everyone" implies no password protected bank accounts. Whereas "all source code available to users" does not imply no password protected bank accounts (or at least I cannot see why it would).
This shows that facts proved about one don't necessarily carry over to the other (in either direction).
You are appealing to analogy/isomorphism to transfer an argument from one domain to another. This is a very powerful tool for arguments but it is only valid if the isomorphism really does hold. This power comes at a price, if someone can poke a single hole in your isomorphism then you lose it completely. I have given a simple example where your isomorphism doesn't hold. You either need a new one or you need to start arguing directly in the domain at hand, without making analogies.
I did not say that public interest criteria _should_ be applied to every aspect of life I showed that applying public interest criteria to these 2 situations gives quite different results. Therefore they are not isomorphic.
You are arguing that public interest criteria should be applied to the secrecy of all software. I am asking why, if you believe that, the same criteria shouldn't be applied to all other types of information. If they can't, then I am asking where, how, and why you draw the line between the types of information that can't be secret, and the types that can.
Let me correct that paragraph.
-- I did not say that public interest criteria _should_ be applied to __any__ aspect of life I showed that applying public interest criteria to these 2 situations gives quite different results. Therefore they are not isomorphic. --
I was not arguing about _should_ or _shouldn't_, I was only showing that your isomorphism does not hold and so you cannot automatically transfer conclusions from one idea to the other. In particular, showing that "no secret passwords" is bad does not prove or disprove that "all source code available to users" is bad.
I should have used a simpler counterexample, one that didn't try to make another point at the same time.
I agree that "no personal secrets" is a bad thing but it is _not_ isomorphic to "all source code must be free for all users". If you want to argue about the second idea, then you will have to argue about it directly and avoid using analogies that are not applicable,
If you want to argue that software can't be kept secret, but other types of information can, then I can ask you to justify the distinction, ask you where you draw the line between what can and can't be kept secret, and why.
This is what the FSF are doing but (rahter unwisely) I'll give it a go too.
Program: instructions which encode an algorithm which determines the actions of a computer.
User of program A: a human who interacts with a computer who's output is materially determined by program A. I say materially determined to exclude stuff like the effect your private number crunching program may have on the execution of program A.
Now, let's say I make a law that says any user of program X is entitled to the source code for program X. Why would that imply that I am entitled to your password or some steamy celebrity's videos? Even if you argue that your password or an mpg is in some way a program, I am not a user of them and so I am not entitled to them or their source code,
F
Fergal Daly wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 03:46:24PM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote:
It is the definition of "using" that we differ on. If your definition of "using" is that you run it on your computer, then I agree, but if your definition of using is that you have some interaction with a remote server on which it is running, then I don't.
It's not my definition that I'm talking about. It's the FSF's
I am aware of that, I was assuming that you were willing to play "devil's advocate" to save on verbosity.
To prove they are not isomorphic you must explain why your argument applies to software but doesn't apply to all other types of information. How do you draw a distinction, and how do you justify that distinction?
No, to show 2 things are not isomorphic all I have to do is find a single thing that's true for one of them and false for the other. Here's the simplest difference I can think of "all passwords available to everyone" implies no password protected bank accounts. Whereas "all source code available to users" does not imply no password protected bank accounts (or at least I cannot see why it would).
Well, we are going off on a logical tangent here - but... the FSFs argument is that a certain thing, lets call them S, should not be kept secret. Presumably they have a justification as to why all S should not be kept secret. S is a subset of Y. If the FSF can't explain why their justification should apply to all S but not all Y, and if it is obviously silly to say that all Y should not be kept secret, then their justification is clearly flawed.
Your observation above is simply that "passwords", an elemnt of Y but not S, should not be kept secret. In saying that you are simply agreeing with me that it is silly to say that all Y should not be kept secret. It doesn't affect the validity of my argument one way or the other.
This is what the FSF are doing but (rahter unwisely) I'll give it a go too.
Program: instructions which encode an algorithm which determines the actions of a computer.
User of program A: a human who interacts with a computer who's output is materially determined by program A. I say materially determined to exclude stuff like the effect your private number crunching program may have on the execution of program A.
Now, let's say I make a law that says any user of program X is entitled to the source code for program X. Why would that imply that I am entitled to your password or some steamy celebrity's videos? Even if you argue that your password or an mpg is in some way a program, I am not a user of them and so I am not entitled to them or their source code,
You are dodging the issue - the important question for you to answer is:
WHY would it be a good idea to make a law that says any user of program X is entitled to the source code for program X?
My argument is that any answer you give to this question, according to your, sorry, the FSF's definition of "using", would apply equally to all information, and would therefore be silly.
To win the argument all you have to do is answer this question and explain what makes your answer advocates the non-secrecy of software without advocating the non-secrecy of all information.
Ian.
I've asnwered your last bit first because it's the key point. The other stuff is just justifying previous arguments.
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 08:28:00PM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote:
WHY would it be a good idea to make a law that says any user of program X is entitled to the source code for program X?
My argument is that any answer you give to this question, according to your, sorry, the FSF's definition of "using", would apply equally to all information, and would therefore be silly.
Because then the user would not be dependent on the author of X for all fixes and improvements.
This reason cannot be applied to passwords.
The important part is not software being freely available, it's the user being free from restrictions once they have the software.
In fact most passwords already have this freedom, you the user are free to change your password and improve it without permission from the "author" of your password.
The Free in FSF is about far more than freely available. In fact the FSF say freely available source is no good on it's own. The Freedom they are concerned with is the Freedom to modify, use and redistribute modified versions without any control from the original author.
The cost of the software is not the issue. In fact if there was a law that said all software can be sold at whatever price you like, for which you also get the source code and the right to run not just the original but your own and other people's modified copies. Then that would be a far Freer (as in FSF) world than if software all software was given away but you still don't get the source or you can't change the source.
To win the argument all you have to do is answer this question and explain what makes your answer advocates the non-secrecy of software without advocating the non-secrecy of all information.
I think we were arguing with 2 differrent definitions of free.
More stuff below if that wasn't enough.
No, to show 2 things are not isomorphic all I have to do is find a single thing that's true for one of them and false for the other. Here's the simplest difference I can think of "all passwords available to everyone" implies no password protected bank accounts. Whereas "all source code available to users" does not imply no password protected bank accounts (or at least I cannot see why it would).
Well, we are going off on a logical tangent here - but... the FSFs argument is that a certain thing, lets call them S, should not be kept secret. Presumably they have a justification as to why all S should not be kept secret. S is a subset of Y. If the FSF can't explain why their justification should apply to all S but not all Y, and if it is obviously silly to say that all Y should not be kept secret, then their justification is clearly flawed.
But they can justify it.
Nobody would benefit if all passwords were public and huge amounts of people in all walks of life would suffer. So no matter what way you cut it nobody is better off with public passwords.
If you apply the same cost-benefit analysis to software in an FSF world you get a different result. You get benefit for users at the expense of the developers. How big each side of the balance is is open to debate but there definitely are large numbers of people who would benefit from an FSF world.
The FSF would argue that in fact the benefits to the users are so great (and the current negatives are so bad) that they outweigh the negatives to the developers.
They would also argue that the ability of developers to get users hooked and then extract a massive tax from them justifies the loss of what many people see as "natural property rights", they believe this especially as this form of property is no exclusive. Unlike physical property, my owning a copy does not effect the original developer's ability use of the software. So it does not take anything from the developers except some possible earnings. This might discourage investment in software as a commercial product but the FSF think that software doesn't need that such investment, that it can and will be developed as a necessity.
Beyond the superficial idea of freeing what is currently private, there is absolutely no connection between "all passwords must be public" and "all users can get the source of the programs they use", arguments applied to one of them do not apply to the other.
Apples and bananas are fruit but the only one which goes well with pork is apple.
Software and passwords are types of information but the only one which can be usefully freed is software.
Your observation above is simply that "passwords", an elemnt of Y but not S, should not be kept secret. In saying that you are simply agreeing with me that it is silly to say that all Y should not be kept secret. It doesn't affect the validity of my argument one way or the other.
I'm absolutely not saying that passwords should not be kept secret. I am examining the conseuqences of not keeping them secret. My conclusion is that there are no advantages and many disadvantages.
I believe I'm starting to believe Ian.
Because then the user would not be dependent on the author of X for all fixes and improvements.
This is where free market comes in. Users have a coice wheather to use services that rely on Free Software or on propritery software. I and the FSF say that all software should be Free, but we cannot _force_ people to make their software free.
This reason cannot be applied to passwords.
The important part is not software being freely available, it's the user being free from restrictions once they have the software.
Again this a market choice thing. Go with MS on your desktop or GNU/ Linux. One can shop for services in the same way.
The Free in FSF is about far more than freely available. In fact the FSF say freely available source is no good on it's own. The Freedom they are concerned with is the Freedom to modify, use and redistribute modified versions without any control from the original author.
Agreed. We must also have the freedom to choose non-Free software :) I personally belive that I should have the freedom to use only Free software, I don't think that I have the freedom to curtail someone else's use of non-Free software. Except where they use Free software owned by me and make it non-Free.
I don't have time to read the rest of your email. I'll reply on Monday -- Aidan Delaney.
If you believe in the health of the software economy, this has been based on IP. -- Jean Philippe Courtois, head of Microsoft's European operations The health of the software economy has been based on the open standard Internet Protocol. -- me
I've rearranged your mail slightly. The first bit is to do with my argument with Ian, the rest if is my interpretation of the FSF's argument. I am undecided on whether their argument is strong enough, I'm interesting in exploring it further but not before resolving the first part.
I don't see any point in exploring it while this analogy between "free passwords" and "free software" exists. So please reply to the first bit and then, if you feel like it, continue on.
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 11:50:40AM +0000, Aidan Delaney wrote:
I believe I'm starting to believe Ian.
...
I don't have time to read the rest of your email. I'll reply on Monday
It's probably not very interesting. It is not really about being for or against full FSF-ism. I'm only only trying to show that the analogy with "no secret passwords" is not useful to the discussion.
If by "starting to believe Ian" you meant that you're starting to believe that software and passwords are so similar and that anyone who argues that software should be Free (FSF - Free) must logically also argue that everybody's passwords should be free (free beer/free as the wind/free to be used by everyone else). If you are starting to believe this then please explain how the "dependency on the author" idea, which is basically the core of the FSF argument, can be transferred to the password situation and implies in any way that nobody should have a secret password.
Until this point is out of the way, there is no point in considering anything else. If Ian is correct on this point then the FSF's philosophy is fundamentally broken. It can be used to justify all manner of bad "free"ness and no matter what points anyone makes in it's favour an opponent can always immediately respond with "that may be true but if you believe that then you must also believe that all secrets are bad".
**************
Because then the user would not be dependent on the author of X for all fixes and improvements.
This is where free market comes in. Users have a coice wheather to use services that rely on Free Software or on propritery software. I and the FSF say that all software should be Free, but we cannot _force_ people to make their software free.
Agreed, but the FSF believe that non-Free software is morally wrong. This gives me the impression that if they could force people (by passing laws for example) they would.
Again, that is not to say that all software must be available to everyone, it just says it must be available to it's users, so if I chose not to let anyone else use my software then no one else would be entitled to the source. This could arguably apply to a corporate situation to, if the company does not distribute the software outside of itself (and does not allow employees to use it for personal purposes), then the software should remain private to the company.
The Free in FSF is about far more than freely available. In fact the FSF say freely available source is no good on it's own. The Freedom they are concerned with is the Freedom to modify, use and redistribute modified versions without any control from the original author.
Agreed. We must also have the freedom to choose non-Free software :) I personally belive that I should have the freedom to use only Free software, I don't think that I have the freedom to curtail someone else's use of non-Free software. Except where they use Free software owned by me and make it non-Free.
I think (and I haven't reread this stuff recently so I could be wrong) that the FSF think that curtailing everyboby's use of non-Free software would be a good thing. The reason being that your use of non-Free software does affect me in. If some non-Free software becomes a de facto standard or a monopoly then I may have no choice but to use it or to spend huge amounts of time writing a compatible version just to go about my daily business in society - Word and .doc files being a perfect example. Think of how much time has been wasted on implementing free software importers just because this terrible, undocumented (undocumentable?) file format is a de facto standard.
Software is inherently monopolistic in a way that chairs aren't. Any chair is pretty much compatible with any other because we don't adjust our bums to suit our current chair and then get locked it to a that shape because we've bought all our underpants and trousers to suit it. We don't run into problems at our friends house because our bums are incompatible with their choice of chair. Even if someone did somehow get a monopoly on chairs, it doesn't raise a huge barrier to entry for competitors. The unit cost of making a chair is pretty much constant (ignoring economies of scale). With software, once you've recovered your initial investment, your unit cost is 0. You can afford to undercut any competitor in order to maintain your monopoly. This not only shafts your existing competitors, it prevents anyone from even trying to compete. So you don't ever actually have to drop your price, just the fact that you can and will drop it is enough to maintain your monopoly.
The normal rules about supply/demand and monopolies in markets don't apply, because they assume that each unit manufactured has an appreciable cost to the manufacturer. So in the old models where competitors fight with the balance tipping this way and that, you had this effect that any monopoly that tried to raise it's prices (or tried to maintain it's prices despite general improvements in manufacturing efficiency) would immediately be undercut and lose market share. The market has a balance point that is somewhere in the middle and if it moves away from that point, market forces will push it back towards the balance point. Think of a ball in a valley, it always rolls back to the valley floor.
With software this doesn't happen. There is a balance point in the middle but if one of the competitors gains an advantage, market forces do not push it back towards the balance point, in fact they push it away from it - the bigger your market share, the more people will choose your software despite the fact that your prices are higher. So the natural end-stage of a software market is monopoly rather than a perpetual balance. Instead of a ball in a valley you have a ball at the top of a mountain. It can stay at the top but if it starts going down one side of the mountain it will almost cretainly go right to the bottom and never come back.
The FSF understand this and they are saying, if we must have monopoly then no one should be in control. It's a fairly good point,
F
Ian Clarke ian@locut.us writes:
Pointing out the potential for an undesirable scenario which doesn't specifically conflict with the goal of an organization does not imply that this goal must be extended to oppose that undesirable scenario.
The goal of the Free Software movement is to give freedom to computer users, not just "offshore" their lack of freedom.
A future of everyone using Free Software thin clients to do their computing on remote machines running proprietary software is not only undesirable, it's unacceptable, and IFSO should not endorse it.
The software is not undisclosed to the person on whose hardware it runs - that is all that matters relative to the philosophy of the Free Software movement.
I think we've reached deadlock.
My personal position is that all software that IFSO uses, on local and remote computers, should be Free Software, unless use of the software is unintentional or unavoidable.
I think that's a reasonable position for a Free Software organisation, and I think that use of the software in our computer BIOS's and accessing web pages which are served by non-FS webservers falls under a reasonable interpretation of "unintentional or unavoidable".
your desire to encourage me to disclose the source code to software I run on my computer is mission creep for IFSO.
It would be good if you did release it as Free Software, the more the merrier, but I'm actually not looking for a new way to work on IFSO letters. (as a side note, I don't think I ever asked you to disclose any of your source code.)
I did previously suggest that IFSO should try 3D17 if it was Free Software, but after some thinking, the mailing list is probably a better fit since it already has sixty-something subscribers, and by email people can offer comments, rewordings, attachments, or hyperlinks.
Also, people are used to email. We had a wiki once, and wiki's are great, but people didn't use it. I would like to get a wiki or some kind of collaborative web tool, possibly a topics&comments forum, but we have to first figure out why the last wiki failed, and what people actually want. Then we'll pick the best Free Software for the job.
As for mission creep, ethics creep, and all the other creeps: IFSO's mission, ethics, and procedures are ripped off wholesale from FSF. For ethical interpertations of FS, although FSF is not infallible, it's safe to say that they are experts. FSF don't ask people to use proprietary web services, so if IFSO did, I (as a member) would want a good explanation.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Ian Clarke ian@locut.us writes:
Pointing out the potential for an undesirable scenario which doesn't specifically conflict with the goal of an organization does not imply that this goal must be extended to oppose that undesirable scenario.
The goal of the Free Software movement is to give freedom to computer users, not just "offshore" their lack of freedom.
Strange definition of "freedom". You should have no more "freedom" to see the source code of software I run on my hardware than I should have the "freedom" to see your GnuPG private key.
A future of everyone using Free Software thin clients to do their computing on remote machines running proprietary software is not only undesirable, it's unacceptable, and IFSO should not endorse it.
A future of nobody being able to keep a secret is even less desirable, and even less acceptable, and IFSO definitely should not endorse that.
(as a side note, I don't think I ever asked you to disclose any of your source code.)
Not directly, but you did say that IFSO shouldn't use my code unless I did.
I did previously suggest that IFSO should try 3D17 if it was Free Software, but after some thinking, the mailing list is probably a better fit since it already has sixty-something subscribers, and by email people can offer comments, rewordings, attachments, or hyperlinks.
The question of whether 3D17 is actually useful is a different thing altogether.
Ian.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Ian Clarke ian@locut.us writes:
Pointing out the potential for an undesirable scenario which doesn't specifically conflict with the goal of an organization does not imply that this goal must be extended to oppose that undesirable scenario.
A future of everyone using Free Software thin clients to do their computing on remote machines running proprietary software is not only undesirable, it's unacceptable, and IFSO should not endorse it.
A future of everyone being dead as a result of a comet impact is not desirable either, is IFSO endorsing that by not encouraging everyone to work on comet deflection technology?
Ian.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
We had a wiki, but it died of boredom. A wiki could be good, but not for a letter.
We've just launched this Wiki for the [ox] list: http://en.wiki.oekonux.org.uk/
It uses this software http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/ which seems to do the trick.
May be IFSO doesn't need a Wiki though ?
James Heald writes:
Are we in touch with these people ?
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
yes, I met them a week ago. They're not politically active and don't have a position on software patentability.
Arg ! - Where are they burying their heads - I think this kind of thing is a big problem - may be we should start blogging on the newswire here
http://www.indymedia.ie/index.php
... and try and raise consciousness and wider support ?
-- Adam
Hi Ciaran and list,
(Sorry I haven't been able to make recent Benshaws meetings. I hope to come to the next one.)
I'd like to put out for discussion a couple of broad points about the draft letter proposed by Ciaran.
* I think the overall format is good --- brief introduction and main point ("please uphold the plenary's amendments") and then more detailed arguments.
* I would guess it's possible that the recipient might have heard the competition, innovation, economic, free software arguments before, so might it be a good idea to start off with the FTC report? I think that this is a very powerful point --- "Never mind all the speculation (from both sides) about what software patents might do, this is what *actually happened* in the US: Software patents hamper innovation, divert resources from R&D, etc.". It might even be worth including their conclusions in full: (I've cut'n'paste this from http://www.ffii.org.uk/ftc/ftc.html but we should check it's word-for-word correct against the original report (at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf). I'm happy to do this if the quote is included in IFSO's letter.)
The software and Internet industries generally are characterized by five factors: (1) innovation occurs on a cumulative basis; (2) capital costs are low, particularly relative to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and hardware industries; (3) the rate of technological change is rapid, and product life cycles are short; (4) alternative means of fostering innovation exist, including copyright protection and open source software; and (5) the industries have experienced a regime change in terms of the availability of patent protection.
Panelists consistently stated that competition drives innovation in these industries. Innovation is also fostered by some industry participants' use of copyright protection or open source software. Several panelists discounted the value of patent disclosures, because the disclosure of a software product's underlying source code is not required.
Many panelists and participants expressed the view that software and Internet patents are impeding innovation. They stated that such patents are impairing follow-on incentives, increasing entry barriers, creating uncertainty that harms incentives to invest in innovation, and producing patent thickets. Panelists discussed how defensive patenting increases the complexity of patent thickets and forces companies to divert resources from R&D into obtaining patents. Commentators noted that patent thickets make it more difficult to commercialize new products and raise uncertainty and investment risks. Some panelists also noted that hold-up has become a problem that can result in higher prices being passed along to consumers.
It strongly supports the view that the patent system does not do what it's supposed to do when applied to software. Not "probably wouldn't do what it's supposed to do", but "DOES NOT...", in the experience of the US panel. The point "this is what happens, don't let Europe repeat the US' mistakes" is a powerful one.
Ciaran's letter does pretty much say all this, but I think it could be emphasised more, and placed more prominently in the ordering.
* Maybe move the paragraph
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.
to before the detailed points? Work it into the introductory paragraphs somehow?
* I've seen it pointed out by many pro-patent groups that there's a correlation between R&D spending and patent portfolio size, with their conclusion being that patents help R&D. I'm not the first to point this out, but: this is just as well explained by interpreting patent spending as a necessary evil with things the way they are, a cost of doing R&D. Not sure that this point should be included, because we're trying to make our own points rather than rebut pro-patent points.
I had a couple of comments about wording here and there, but I'll pay attention to the "no nitpicking" request :-)
Hope this might be useful,
Ben.
Ben North writes:
(Sorry I haven't been able to make recent Benshaws meetings. I hope to come to the next one.)
good to have you back.
- I would guess it's possible that the recipient might have heard the competition, innovation, economic, free software arguments before, so might it be a good idea to start off with the FTC report?
ok. I'll do this and see how it looks.
divert resources from R&D, etc.". It might even be worth including their conclusions in full: (I've cut'n'paste this from
I was thinking of including a print out of the 13 pages on software patents, and highlighting any sections that we reference. The report is certainly a gold mine.
It strongly supports the view that the patent system does not do what it's supposed to do when applied to software.
The report points out two causes of problems: The innability of the US patent office, and the problems of owning software ideas. We just have to make clear that the second class of problems are what has to be tackled.
Not "probably wouldn't do what it's supposed to do", but "DOES NOT...", in the experience of the US panel. The point "this is what happens, don't let Europe repeat the US' mistakes" is a powerful one.
so we should be more assertive. ok.
Maybe move the paragraph
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.to before the detailed points? Work it into the introductory paragraphs somehow?
will do. I positioned that paragraph kinda haphazardly. It was an artefact from a previous draft.
- I've seen it pointed out by many pro-patent groups that there's a correlation between R&D spending and patent portfolio size,
I think this is refuted by parts of the FTC report, so we can work it in from there.
I had a couple of comments about wording here and there, but I'll pay attention to the "no nitpicking" request :-)
I'll post a new draft tonight, and another on friday. It should be ready for nitpicking then.
Ciaran O'Riordan writes:
Ben North writes:
It might even be worth including [the FTC report's] conclusions in full:
I was thinking of including a print out of the 13 pages on software patents, and highlighting any sections that we reference. The report is certainly a gold mine.
That's a good idea, yes. If you don't think it would make the letter too bulky, though, I still think the three-paragraph conclusion should be included in the letter. It's good stuff, as you say.
I positioned that paragraph ["Software already has legal protection in the form of copyright..."] kinda haphazardly. It was an artefact from a previous draft.
I think it's a good point to include, otherwise we might be dismissed as arguing for no controls at all on software.
Not "probably wouldn't do what it's supposed to do", but "DOES NOT...", in the experience of the US panel. The point "this is what happens, don't let Europe repeat the US' mistakes" is a powerful one.
so we should be more assertive. ok.
I've just realised that what I wrote might look like I was SHOUTING AT THE LIST --- sorry. I was trying to say that we should find some good way of strongly pointing out that the FTC report is based on actual experience of people working in the software industry, and having to work with (or round) the current US patent system. And that their experience is that patents don't work for software.
- I've seen it pointed out by many pro-patent groups that there's a correlation between R&D spending and patent portfolio size,
I think this is refuted by parts of the FTC report, so we can work it in from there.
OK, sounds good.
I'll post a new draft tonight, and another on friday. It should be ready for nitpicking then.
I think it's looking good; thanks very much for your work.
Ben.