Groundhog day: Leaflet for Software Patents

[Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild]

Innovation is the point of software freedom: Without innovation, there
would come time when there would be no need for new software, no need
for software developers to be able to alter the code.

On 17 May 2012 12:45, Ciarán O'Riordan <ciaran at member.fsf.org> wrote:
>
> I can't do any more on this.  Exams coming up.
>
> Whichever intro is used, it should explain how swpats are bad for:
>
> 1. Free software - important for users
> 2. Software freedom - important for developers
>
> 1. Free software is harmed because swpats give an advantage to companies
>   with money and lawyers.  This category is the least likely to
>   spontaneously give freedom to users of their software.  Spontaneous
>   offers of freedom (and pressure on large companies to also give
>   freedom) comes from individuals, academics, hobbyists, and (to a
>   lesser extent) SMEs.  Anything that helps big companies and harms
>   small developers, will reduce the amount of free software in the
>   world.
>
> 2. Software freedom is damaged because it becomes illegal to develop or
>   distribute certain types of programs.
>
> For FSFE both are important, but users might only see the value of #1,
> and developers might only see the value of #2, so both should be
> explained.
>
> The harms of software patents can also be explained with two other
> categories: 1. They add financial and legal risks to *all* software
> development.  2. They specifically block the development of useful
> software because (a) they block standards and (b) when a software
> package gains a lot of users, *then* it becomes a target for either
> patent trolls wanting money or big software companies wanting to kill
> competition.
>
>
> I think it's also important to ignore innovation.  FSFE has no mandate
> to promote innovation.  If some reliable studies proved that swpats help
> innovation, or if politicians were convinced that this was true, then
> FSFE saying "Promoting innovation is important" wouldn't be helpful.  We
> can leave that work to researchers.  FSFE's role is to say "They also
> hurt free software and software freedom, and these are important!".
>
> Some people will see freedom as a tradeable value.  (Do I want more
> freedom if it will ruin the economy?)  To reassure those people, a
> *minor* mention of not hurting innovation/SMEs/economy/other-stuff is
> worthwhile.
>
> Last comments:
>
> * Avoid words like "oligopolistic" - not everyone knows what exactly
>  they are and how they affect software freedom / free software
>
> * Words like "market" are difficult to use right.  The software *market*
>  is just an incidental aspect of what FSFE cares about.
>
> Hope that helps.  This groundhog is now going into hibernation...
> --
> Ciarán O'Riordan
> +32 (0) 485 118 029
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion



--
Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild
FSFE Fellow (en) / FSFE ühinglane (et)
<repentinus at fsfe.org>
<https://wiki.fsfe.org/Fellows/repentinus>
<http://blogs.fsfe.org/repentinus/>


-- 
Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild
FSFE Fellow (en) / FSFE ühinglane (et)
<repentinus at fsfe.org>
<https://wiki.fsfe.org/Fellows/repentinus>
<http://blogs.fsfe.org/repentinus/>