03.03.14
Posted in America, FSF, Law, OIN, OSI, Patents, Red Hat at 5:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The debate about software patents in the United States is back because many Free software advocacy groups and companies (not Open Invention Network though) are getting involved in a Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case
OVER THE past 6 months or so there have not been many debates about software patents. There were debates about trolls and other such distracting debates; many of them were ‘pre-approved’ by corporations and covered by the corporate press. We had highlighted this appealing trend several dozens of times before pretty much abandoning this debate and giving up on involvement; generally speaking, providing coverage for these debates is basically helping those who create obstacles for small players (monopolies/oligopolies) just shift the public’s attention away from patent scope.
Debates about software patents returned about a week ago. The Open Invention Network (OIN) was mentioned in the article “Software patents should include source code”, but it’s such an offensive idea because it helps legitimise software patents, which is what the Open Invention Network often does anyway. To quote the article: “Computer-implemented inventions that are patented in Europe should be required to fully disclose the patented invention, for example by including working, compilable source code, that can be verified by others. This would be one way to avoid frivolous software patents, says Mirko Boehm, a Berlin-based economist and software developer working for the OpenInvention Network (OIN).”
Why on Earth does the Open Invention Network get involved in pushing the idea of software patents in Europe? Source code or not, software patents are not legal in Europe and the same goes in most of the world, including India where lawyers’ sites still try to legitimise them.
In another blog post, one from a proprietary software company, the ludicrous notion of “Intellectual Property” is mentioned in the context of Free software and patents. The author is actually pro-Free software, but the angle he takes helps warp the terminology and warp the discussion somewhat. To quote him: “My usual response to the question, “Do I have to worry about patent trolls and copyright infringement in open source software?” is another question, “Does your proprietary vendor offer you unlimited liability for patent trolls and copyright infringement and what visibility do you have into their source code?” In the proprietary world I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a vendor who provides unlimited liability for their products against IP infringement, or even much over the cost of the products or services rendered. How often do you review their source code and if given the opportunity are you able to share your findings with other users. In open source that’s simply table stakes.”
Contrary to all the above, the Software Freedom Law Center, together with the FSF and the OSI (Simon Phipps and Luis Villa) actually fight the good fight. To quote Phipps: “How important are software patents? We know they’re a threat to the freedom of developers to collaborate openly in communities, chilling the commercial use of shared ideas that fuels engagement with open source. We know that the software industry was established without the “incentive” of software patents. But the importance of the issue was spotlighted yesterday in a joint action by two leading open source organizations.”
Here is how Phipps concludes his article at IDG: “I endorse and welcome this joint position calling for firm clarity on software patents. (I was obviously party to the decision to take it, although I’m not writing on OSI’s behalf here.) With 15 years of history behind us, there’s far more that unites the FSF and the OSI than divides us. We’ve each played our part in the software freedom movement that has transformed computing. Now all of us in both communities need to unite to end the chilling threat of software patents to the freedom to innovate collaboratively in community.”
Red Hat too is joining this battle and announcing this to shareholders, making some press coverage in the process amid many articles about SCOTUS in the post-Bilski case era (see some coverage in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 910]).
Software patents are finally in the headlines again (not much sympathy for them), but there is also some focus on trolls, courtesy of companies like Samsung and Apple. Other recent reporting about patents covered patent lawyers’ business, the role of universities in patents (they help feed trolls these days), and also USPTO reform (that was a fortnight ago). None of this dominated the news, however, as much as the debate was on software patents. So, perhaps it’s time to get back to covering patents on an almost daily basis.
Software patents are the most important issue as they are the biggest barrier to Free software. We just need to have the subject of software patents and their elimination publicly discussed. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.27.13
Posted in Free/Libre Software, OSI at 12:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Vulnerable terms die hard
Photo by Brian Solis
Summary: Free/libre software — unlike “Open Source” — highlights the main strength of code people are sharing among one another
WHEN it comes to freedom-respecting hardware, an explanation to the public about the benefits is relatively simple. Many refer to particular actions as “unlocking” or “jail-breaking”, so there is also familiar terminology one can use. The words “free” and “freedom” would have been very helpful in this context, but the “Open Source” movement sought to bury those words.
Nowadays it’s rather common to see articles about the subject accompanied by terms like “open-source” or “Open Hardware” (misnomers because they overlook the main benefit). Some refer to it as a matter of “control” [1]. use it as a metaphor for a process [2], a financial model [3], a business model [4], and even ecosystems [5]. There are many other new articles about it [6-10] and few actually have anything to do with source code.
By going along with a term like “open source” — a term originally coined and used by the spies (like the NSA) to mean something completely different — the “Open Source” movement made itself susceptible to brand dilution and confusion. Companies like Microsoft now call “open” some of their proprietary software products and formats. █
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
Matthew Casebeer Computer Scientist for MAYA Design, a consulting group that’s focused on simplifying devices and data. He finds that open source design benefits all who share information through their devices, not just computer scientists that work on fixing problems for large groups of users.
-
Six years ago, Maggie Vail and Jesse von Doom launched CASH Music, a nonprofit with the express goal of building open-source tools to help musicians reach their audience—and make a living. Vail originally cut her teeth at the Kill Rock Stars label, while von Doom’s background was in web development. Both wanted to streamline the musician-to-audience experience. And so they made the CASH (which stands for Coalition of Artists and Stakeholders) platform open-source, allowing artists and labels to build networks in their own unique and flexible ways.
-
Open-source capitalism is the same exact thing that made early America a successful nation to begin with.
-
Proof that open source can pay arrived today in the guise of Cambridge bioinformatics company, Eagle Genomics, who closed a £1 million funding round that it said would allow it to further develop its core platform technology and scale up operations including a doubling of staff.
Having started in human health and expanded into the areas of crop science and personal hygiene, the company also plans to move further into non-traditional areas for bioinformatics such as consumer goods, food safety and animal health.
-
The Open Source Beehives Project aims to lower the barriers to backyard beekeeping with simple, low-cost hive designs. With bees dying by the millions, they need to spread the buzz.
-
-
When your last smartphone started to get a little long in the tooth, you probably just bought a new one. Maybe you kept the old one around as a backup. Maybe you recycled it. But, chances are, whatever you did, you didn’t physically upgrade the thing. You didn’t toss in more memory or a new processor or any aftermarket parts.
-
-
If like me you would prefer to be dining something else rather than mowing the lawn, you might be interested in this awesome open source Arduino mower which brings a little more fun back to moving your yard and has been under development for some time.
-
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.22.13
Posted in Free/Libre Software, FUD, GPL, Microsoft, OSI at 10:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft proxies or offshoots are not managing to keep their cover and legitimate figures in the Free software world end up ostracising these
TECHRIGHTS recently wrote about the latest FUD from Black Duck, which has its roots in a person from Microsoft. Bruce Perens said that more people should call out this firm for its dubious claims about the GPL and now we see Simon Phipps, the president of the OSI, speaking about the problem. To quote:
So the real risk is much smaller than the headline numbers suggest. In all this, I can’t help feeling Black Duck want us to be afraid. It’s very important that Github takes its responsibilities seriously, and their new improvements show they are starting to do so. But the headline “60% of open source is dangerous” number from Black Duck, together with the “77% of Github is dangerous” number, seem over stated. Given their business model is to apply reassuring consulting and tools to corporate fears about open source, maybe that’s not surprising. But it’s regrettable.
Open source software is all about developers being able to achieve sufficient certainty to collaborate without the need to spend money on legal advice. OSI’s approved licenses deliver that, and the vast majority of active open source projects have this topic sorted. While Github’s laissez faire attitude to date has led to a good deal of inconvenience identifying the license in use for projects there, as well as pandering to the anti-bureaucratic instincts of the newer generation of developers, it’s now being sorted and it never rose to the level of a crisis for most people.
It must have been frustrating for Black Duck to have the PR spin on their new product thwarted by Github; I just wish they had responded by toning down the “danger, danger” message. Open source has a lower compliance burden than proprietary software and its endless, custom EULAs and developer licenses. Let’s shout that message, for a change.
Not too long ago Phipps also chastised a Microsoft proxy called Microsoft 'Open' Technologies.
After all the GPL fear that was spread by Black Duck it is too hard to believe anything it says. Black Duck was also honouring Microsoft with 'open source' awards (lending legitimacy with mere words and hype), not disclosing that it had a Microsoft business partnership and also a strong Microsoft connection (the firm’s founder) since its inception. The thing to remember about Black Duck is, they’re not selling FOSS or even any valuable information, just FUD and proprietary software. Moreover, they deserve no mercy or the benefit of the doubt (as there is doubt no more and the doubt only ever comes from them, along with fear and uncertainty about using FOSS code).
“The thing to remember about Black Duck is, they’re not selling FOSS or even any valuable information, just FUD and proprietary software.”Microsoft is desperate for revisionism and it needs moles inside the Free software community (e.g. to remove the F from FOSS, to make it more Windows-oriented). Microsoft created some proxies like Outercurve/CodePlex, but it’s too easy to see that these are Microsoft propaganda and infiltration departments because Microsoft pays the wages. The other day we saw how Python and Ruby got targeted by those people, under the guise of ‘interop’. To quote a blog post about it (claiming ‘open source’ releases): “Rx is available for different platforms such as .NET, JavaScript, C/C++, and Windows Phone frameworks, and as of today, Ruby and Python as well. You can download the libraries, as well as learn about their prerequisites at the Rx MSDN Developer Center.”
Yes, how profoundly ‘open source’. As long as the rest is all proprietary, everywhere else inside the stack… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.23.13
Posted in Google, OSI at 4:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Nelson Mandela would not have been proud
Summary: Why Google needs to fix the licence of VP9, or simply stop pretending that it should be the only de facto standard for multimedia
IT HAS become rather evident that WebM has a licensing issue due to MPEG-LA, a Microsoft- and Apple-backed troll. There is finally a good press report about it, citing Mr. Phipps (OSI President). It says: “When Google announced that it was signing a patent agreement with the MPEG LA patent pool, the company said that it would ensure that a licence agreement for third parties using WebM/VP8 would be put in place that would let them make use of the protection within the agreement. After the publication of a draft of the cross-licence agreement, Simon Phipps, open source advocate, has voiced doubts about the agreement saying it “closes the door on software freedom”.”
“The problems with such licences are that they make it hard to include support in FOSS applications and they have an international impact, even where software patents are not legal.”The problems with such licences are that they make it hard to include support in FOSS applications and they have an international impact, even where software patents are not legal. But as this tweet reminds us, work on globalising the policy may be underway. “Will the unitary patent give NPEs more leverage and should patent owners opt out? Panelists from HGF and ZTE discuss at #mipbeijing,” says a pro-patents account. Remember that MPEG-LA is NPE acting as a proxy for companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Nokia. We’ll write about software patents in the next few posts. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.08.13
Posted in EFF, Microsoft, OSI, Patents, Standard at 1:15 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Unleashing the attack dogs on free Internet communication
Summary: Patent news involving communications tools which either promote surveillance (Microsoft) or impede surveillance (FOSS and standards); more Microsoft involvement in patent law is seen
Skype is said to be a patent violation (inevitably, all software is a patent violation in a country where software patents are abundant) and a Microsoft friendly site adds that “CopyTele CEO Robert Berman, whose company filed two claims last week against Microsoft’s Skype service, says his case is nuanced.”
Hopefully he can destroy Skype, but the government would never allow that. Skype has been incredibly valuable not just for domestic surveillance but foreign surveillance too. The US records everything and stores it in datacentres with colossal machines that boast high disk capacity. On a per-person basis, this is rather cheap. See our Skype overview page for more information. It’s not the main topic of this particular post, which is really about patent abuses.
Skype’s rival which supports real privacy is SIP-based VOIP, but Microsoft’s partner BT is attacking it with software patents. There is a Slashdot discussion about it and we covered it the other day.
The OSI’s president, who is British, says that “BT mounts awesome visual aid of why standards should be patent free by law” and the FFII’s president writes:
After 20 years we still do not have a free video codec for the web, blame Microsoft, Nokia and other patent trolls.
He adds at a similar time that “BT claim patents on VoIP SIP, a disaster, covered by a minefield of 99 patents. Time to quick swpats out of EU” (swpats as in software patents).
He ridicules the recent “World IP Day” by calling it “World Imaginary Property” and adding that “Microsoft heavily depends on plant variety rights. Monsanto needs software patents”.
He also thinks that the “EFF does not push for abolition of software patents in the US,” calling “for an FFII.us branch” (the EFF has indeed disappointed in that regard).
The USPTO cannot be chastised by US entities as effectively as European entities doing the same thing. Additionally, the EFF is dominated by lawyers (part of the problem), whereas the FFII is dominated by software professionals. The EFF is working against trolls but not against software patents like it once said it would. Google too is adopting this method. The danger is that the USPTO will be expanding towards a global patent system (a subject we covered here many times before), inspired by the US, as usual. The first step is almost complete:
After decades of proposals and debate, a new European-wide single patent, known as the Unitary Patent may well be a reality by the end of 2014.
From the “World IP Day” (notice globalisation nuance) we have this tidbit:
Luke Johnson – too many patents now issued and undermine the value of IP protection (those ‘patent trolls’)
We said this many times before. Anyway, this “IP Day” is just more propaganda opportunism. It’s for lobbying. Microsoft is lobbying too, eternally striving to prevent the patent system from being truly fixed while its lawyers are committing RICA Act violations (racketeering). Here is the latest propaganda from Brad Smith (top Microsoft lawyer), with a British lawyer giving a shoutout:
Brad Smith laments the absence of a well functioning secondary market for patents — and patent lawyers who love their patents
Not so long ago Microsoft brought extortion to China (starting with a producing giant, Foxconn [1, 2]), calling it “licensing” to deceive regulators. This is crime disguised as “honouring the [patent] law.”
There will soon be a panel event involving a prominent opponent of software patent, Judge Posner. To quote this introduction: “A panel of distinguished jurists will discuss these two conflicting perspectives on whether the patent system today promotes or hampers innovation: Arthur Gajarsa, former Judge on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Paul Michel, former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and Richard Posner, Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The panel will be moderated by Douglas Ginsburg, former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and a Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law.”
This panel does not look like it’s completely rigged, unlike the ridiculous "roundtable" (where all sides of the table held the same position/premise). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.04.13
Posted in Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, OSI, Patents at 4:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Microsoft’s sting is deceivingly called “Microsoft Open Technologies”
Summary: Microsoft continues to blackmail, damage, demonise etc. — thus isolating FOSS (Free Open Source Software) projects and marginalising the development community/ies — while claiming to have embraced “openness”
The OSI’s president would not characterise Microsoft as Satan, he is just realistic about the company’s real intent. His predecessor was the same as the OSI was barely ever infiltrated by Microsoft moles, thankfully enough (I can think only of two exceptions, Denise and Matt). The OSI is about to get a new board and hopefully enough Microsoft’s entryism attempts will be kept at bay (OSI was infiltrated by Microsoft only in the licence sense). Microsoft successfully infiltrated other FOSS authorities which it rendered defunct upon joining. Yes, we have examples, but these are not worth revisiting right now.
Currently, Microsoft tries a man in the middle approach and Phipps knows what Microsoft is really up to. He writes:
Microsoft Open Technologies is plenty busy. But Microsoft still hasn’t explained why a separate entity was needed
Phipps is more blunt in his blog. He calls this scam “Microsoft Firewall” and says:
On its first anniversary, I remain convinced that the motivation for Microsoft’s wholly-owned open source & open standards subsidiary is primarily to isolate Microsoft from the open source community.
Well, what Microsoft calls “openness” is actually extortion, blackmail and sabotage; taxing GNU/Linux and controlling it. This is all just a branding and marketing exercise for Microsoft. Fernando Cassia shows that the Microsoft-funded SUSE, as expected, is sidling yet closer to Microsoft right now, handing yet more control over GNU/Linux to the sociopath:
Since we shared the stage at OSBC last year, our joint efforts have also delivered the SUSE Manager Management Pack for System Center, which facilitates Linux server patching through Microsoft’s management tools, as well as support for SUSE Linux Enterprise Servers and openSUSE images on Windows Azure Virtual Machines.
Obsidian makes a mistake too.
Microsoft is not being nice to Linux. Putting aside extortion with patents, which is a RICO Act violation, there is technical sabotage. With Vista 8 it is suppressing Linux boots (through UEFI restricted boot) and it has real impact on Free software adoption. As Mr. Varghese puts it, there are untold complications:
Linux does not have this capability. Those Linux distributions that have developed a means of booting on secure boot-enabled systems need to disable hibernation in the kernel. Or they can do as Canonical, the maker of Ubuntu, has done and remove the hibernation option from the user interface.
Thanks to SUSE folks who helped take restricted boot mainstream (kernel-embedded), we are all bound to suffer for years to come. Hardware is being made Linux-hostile with the flawed assumption that Linux will cope.
‘Open’ is how Microsoft paints itself whilst doing the very opposite; the company tries to immune itself from criticism using newspeak. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.02.12
Posted in Europe, OSI, Patents, Standard at 12:31 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The British government says no to “FRAND”-washed software patents traps, at least in the public sector
It is with great pleasure that we read this news about standards winning in the UK. Real standards:
Whitehall has launched its long-awaited response to the open standards consultation, which will force government bodies to comply with its list of “Open Standards Principles” when purchasing technology.
Departments must use the principles for all software interoperability and data and document formats. If they do not use the principles they will have to apply for an exemption, according to a Cabinet Office statement. As of today the principles will be embedded in the Cabinet Office’s spend control process.
Over at IDG, never mind London-based sites, Simon Phipps, the OSI’s President (from the UK), celebrates on the news:
Government procurements now prefer open standards – and that means no patent restrictions in the standards.
Here is something about getting it right:
A little over five years ago I was speaking at a conference for the CIOs of various Canadian ministries. Speaking just before me was a consultant from Accenture who was presenting on their most recent Global Report on Government Service Delivery. In it, Canada had just slipped from first to second in the world, after Singapore. While slightly disappointed, the audience remained content that among 30 or so leading countries in the world, Canada remained second.
The FSFE’s response was noted by some:
The new policy does not cover open-source software, which is part of a different policy document.
“This is a major step forward,” said the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) of the Open Standards Principles.
Here is the original statement in full, courtesy of Karsten:
Today, the UK took a long-awaited, important step towards fixing this problem. (FSFE press release) It published a set of “Open Standards principles” (pdf). They’re effective immediately, and all central government bodies will have to abide by them. It also put out a response to the public Open Standards consultation that it had run up to June 2012. (See FSFE’s response to the consultation.) In this post, I’m covering only the Open Standards principles.
This news is important for British SMBs which capitalise on standards, unlike giant multinationals. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.22.11
Posted in Microsoft, OSI, Patents at 3:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Michael Tiemann dice que Florian Müller “procede a emitir insensateces” después de insultar a la Open Source Initiative (OSI), respecto a la defensa del Free/Open Source.
MICROSOFT esta lascivamente deseando las patentes de Novell y Microsoft Florian[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Florian_M%C3%BCller] sigue lamiéndose los labios sobre la posibilidad de que Microsoft y otros obtengan algunos de las llamadas “patentes de FOSS Free Open Source Software” para amenazar con Linux. Es más transparente basado en lo que escribe, especialmente se regodea (e insulta) en su cuenta de Twitter. No es el único sin embargo.
Jon Brodkin de IDG, a quien conocemos por sus esfuerzos de blanqueo de Microsoft (de los que recientemente dio ejemplos [1[http://techrights.org/2011/03/21/wp7-dissed-by-mobile-industry/], 2[http://techrights.org/2011/03/03/idg-microsoft-whitewash/], 3[http://techrights.org/2010/08/30/microsoft-foss-deception-again/]], y él también habla con Florian), dice que “EE.UU. Defensa de la Competencia revisará Microsoft/Novell venta de patentes por 30 días más[http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/72127]“. Florian mientras tanto difunde desinformación, tratando de apurar el juicio o inyectar un poco de desinformación mientras que Florian engaña a la gente (hay un informe CPTLN inexacta en ZDNet Reino Unido, tal vez como resultado de esto[http://techrights.org/2011/04/16/zdnet-uk-censorship-debate/]), cuando en realidad incluso su amigo en línea Maureen O ‘Gara se da cuenta de que no hay liquidación[http://www.sys-con.com/node/1795207]. Brodkin, un blogger de Microsoft, lo está girando como en defensa de Microsoft (“Escudo de las demandas …”) [1[http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/224751/novell_patent_sale_to_shield_microsoft_apple_emc_and_oracle_from_lawsuits.html], 2[http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/040811-novell-patents.html]], es sin duda este título[http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/novell-patent-sale-raises-concerns-but-still-likely-to-proceed] que lo convierte en un fan de la oferta, al igual que Florian. El acuerdo de patentes es atroz (FSF y OSI están de acuerdo e incluso trabajan en conjunto en contra de ella, de una manera sin precedentes), mientras que los boosters de Microsoft están anunciando o prediciendo su éxito incluso antes de que sea aprobado. ¿Están tratando de influir en la decisión mediante la generación de afirmaciones falaces? A decir verdad, hemos escrito sobre esto antes[http://techrights.org/2011/04/10/all-software-patents-are-bad/]. Dado que la multitud a favor de Microsoft está tan ansiosos por ver esas patentes caer en los brazos de Microsoft, sabemos con certeza que la FSF y OSI están en lo correcto y para citar una respuesta de “Barney”[http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2011-04-11-001-41-PS-0000], destinado a apuntar a Brodkin de (título es “La Venta de Patentes de NOvell un Escudo de Microsoft, Apple, EMC y Oracle en contra de Demandas “):
Escudo? no querrá decir espada.
Yo realmente no veo Microsoft, Apple, ni Oracle sean pasivos en lo que respecta a la utilización de esas patentes y a mi modo de ver, se utilizarán para reducir la tecnología productos basados en código abierto (también conocido como Linux).
Sólo hay una respuesta[http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2011-04-11-001-41-PS-0001] y una que no tiene en cuenta la actitud de las empresas ante a la competencia y cómo utilizan las patentes. Ellos son los agresores. Mientras tanto, la maquinaria de propaganda de Microsoft Florian se pone en marcha otra vez y responde el jefe de la OSI[http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2011-04-08-011-41-OP-LL-0000]:
Florian Mueller acusa que la OSI esta soltando tonterías, y luego procede a emitirlas él mismo. Le estoy llamando la atención por ello.
La FCO ha manifestado claramente las condiciones en las que pueden y cuando el acuerdo debe ser bloqueada, que es cuando cuando la transacción CPTLN crearía o “reforzaría una posición dominante de uno o varios inversores CPTLN-en los mercados en que actúan.” Florian piensa que es una barrera imposiblemente alta, porque según él, no hay realmente ninguna manera que los reguladores puedan para hacer su trabajo. Rechazo esa conclusión cínica. Y me siento satisfecho de que los reguladores en los EE.UU. y la UE están leyendo cuidadosamente tanto los requisitos legales y los hechos y la evidencia de la transacción. Ya hemos visto un gran cambio en la estructura de la transacción CPTLN, lo que indica que hubo claramente algunas cuestiones muy graves con la primera estructuración.
En el mundo del código abierto, un parche rechazado nunca es aceptado automáticamente por el mero hecho algunos cambios fueron hechos al azar y presentado de nuevo el parche. El parche debe abordar las cuestiones de fondo, y debe hacerlo de una manera que sea aceptada por la comunidad. Se acepta que el *mantenedor* dice que es bastante bueno, no cuando el presentador dice que es lo suficientemente bueno.
La transacción propuesta revisada CPTLN se refirió a una de las muchas preocupaciones planteadas por la OSI, pero deja a la mayoría de los problemas sin resolver. La FCO solicitó nuestro aporte-como miembros de nuestra comunidad y nos han dado respuesta. Debemos dejar que el FCO hacer su trabajo, y no más allá que su autoridad, su capacidad o su integridad.
Como el siguiente comentarista señaló[http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2011-04-08-011-41-OP-LL-0002]:
Ojalá este resumen, como la mayoría en Linux Hoy en día, había identificado al autor del artículo. Esta es una importante pieza de información que yo uso a la hora de decidir si deseo o no hacer clic para leer un artículo.
Y el siguiente después de él[http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2011-04-08-011-41-OP-LL-0003l]:
Gracias por ese post informativo, Michael. Cuando ví que el vínculo era con el “Software Libre de Patentes”, decidí evitar hacer clic.
Barnie pregunta[http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2011-04-08-011-41-OP-LL-0004]: “Florian – ¿Alimentas que las ofertas de patente de Microsoft están justificadas?
En los últimos años hemos visto que Microsoft ocupa (al parecer por amenazas de acciones legales) extrajo ofertas de patentes con empresas de la talla de HTC, TomTom y muchos otros.
¿Cree usted que alguna de estas ofertas están justificados y que creen que el sistema actual está funcionando?
Florian aparece un par de veces en este tema, sólo para insistir en el mismo giro y la distorsión de los hechos (su táctica principal, también en contra de mensajeros que no está de acuerdo con, por ejemplo, Groklaw y Techrights). Rainer Weikusat cierra la conversación con:
> 1) Si fuera por mí, las patentes de este tipo
> No se concederían en el primer lugar.
.
Pero no es “hasta que”, es decir, cualquier declaración sobre
esta de su lado es puramente hipotética: No
“Test de realidad” de su veracidad nunca ocurrirá
y en el contexto de la cuestión real, también es
completamente irrelevante.
.
> No creo que es razonable conceder
> Monopolios de 20 años en las ideas relacionadas con el software. Este
> es independiente de si estamos hablando de
> FAT de Microsoft multitouch, Apple, Oracle virtuales máquina
>, Amazon un solo clic o patente Google Doodle
> (Sí, patentado que uno y fue la patente
> Concedido recientemente, y en mi opinión es más
> Absurda en esta lista).
.
Es por lo menos sobre una invención original,
frente a alguien con tareas de diseño e implementación
una manera de agregar “nombres de archivo largos” a un directorio de DOS
de una manera que no moleste el software escrito para
uso de nombres 8.3 ‘(algo que cualquier programador decente
ser fácilmente capaz de) y, a continuación el resultado de las patentes
de este trabajo con el fin de obstaculizar independientes,
implementaciones interoperables.
.
> 2) Teniendo en cuenta que este tipo de patentes existen, sin embargo,
> Es el curso normal de los negocios de ese derecho
los titulares de> querer usarlos. Si la concesión de licencias en
> Condiciones razonables, que es infinitamente mejor que cualquier
> Uso estratégico de exclusión de las patentes
.
La pregunta interesante, sin embargo, es lo que precisamente
que constituye una “manera razonable”. Por ejemplo, legalmente,
Linux está prohibido de ser completamente interoperables
con sistemas de creación de sistemas de archivos a través del “nombre largo
método de adición “patentado por Microsoft, con la excepción
en la medida en propiedad de los módulos del kernel de dudosa legalidad
el estado se utilizan. Y en mi opinión, esto es “estratégica,
el uso excluyente de las patentes “: Si bien la licencia de uso
esta “invención” puede estar disponible para ‘empresas’ que
sólo se concede a condición de que dicho
las empresas no participiate en gran escala
de colaboración de desarrollo los esfuerzos de Microsoft considera
a ser potencialmente perjudicial para su negocio en marcha
éxito. Esto también convenientemente ignora el hecho de que
“Desarrollo” una gran cantidad de no se hace por «empresas»
producción de software, debido a “valor de venta” de su (y
por lo tanto, capaz de pagar derechos de autor).
La legitimidad de Microsoft Florian en los círculos del software libre del que pretende ser el campeón, está en su punto más bajo de todos los tiempos. Cualquier cosa que se puede atribuir a él en el pasado está siendo reemplazada por el engaño inaceptable y su hostilidad hacia la libertad del software, incluyendo su lenguaje y comportamiento grosero. Florian el autor no es Florian el lobbyist y él admite que nunca escribió FOSS.
La Vergonzosa Defensa de Ofertas de patente de Microsoft Florian se detalla aquí.
–Comentario por Twitter—
Preface
He incluido este comentario de Twitter por que explica detalladamente la actitud propagandista del empleado de Microsoft: Microsoft Florian, como siembra desinformación, ataca a los que lo desemascaran y a todo aquel que proteste por la manera como quiere justificar como Microsoft utiliza las patentes asi como las que quiere obtener de CPTLN para destruir Linux. No nos olvidemos, MS Florian es un empleado de Microsoft es lo que explica la manera que actúa.
Florian ha tenido éxito en jugar a Slashdot. Sus insultos a Groklaw y Techrights que siguierón de cerca el anuncio del retiro de PJ me molesto por lo que me decidí a ver lo que Florian Mueller ha estado diciendo a Slashdot[http://slashdot.org/~twitter/journal/263284]. Se las arregló para inyectar su opinión 16 veces en el último año, sobre todo FUD en contra de los competidores de Microsoft. Cada uno de los 16 artículos Slashdot representa muchas más publicaciones de prensa de Microsoft. Compare la calumnia prolífica en contra de Red Hat, Google, IBM, RMS, la Free Software Foundation y otros a su falta de preocupación por Microsoft. Buscando en su blog podemos encontrar:
No se hace mención de Intelectual Ventures[http://slashdot.org/~twitter/journal/263284]
No se hace mención de Nathan Myhrvold[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Afosspatents.blogspot.com++%22nathan+myhrvold%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=]
Menciona Microsoft Abogado de patentes 4 veces[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&ei=K0OqTaWGFeWR0QGeoKT5CA&ved=0CBYQvwUoAQ&q=site%3Afosspatents.blogspot.com+gutierrez&spell=1], sobre todo para llevar a la gente a leer la opinión de Microsoft.
Una vez le pregunté si leyó mi Línea de Tiempo de Microsoft Extorsión de Patentes[http://techrights.org/2010/11/14/msft-extorsion-es/]–un deber leerla para entender la real actitud de Microsoft uso de patentes-, y le pregunté por qué no persiguió a Microsoft y sus evidente ataques en contra de GNU/Linux y el Software Libre. Se quedó en silencio en aquel momento. Ahora veo que produjo esta pobre excusa[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/08/microsofts-use-of-patents.html] de “el enfoque cooperativo de Microsoft en cuanto a las patentes[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.html].” En su defensa de Microsoft, rechaza las acusaciones de que él es un lobbyst de Microsoft en el que no se puede confiar. Entonces, nos dice[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/08/microsofts-use-of-patents.html],
Microsoft no utiliza sus patentes en una forma destructiva. No sólo se sientan en sus patentes sin hacer nada, pero son un soporte de cooperación de derechos que no los utilizan para eliminar a la competencia. … Los desarrolladores, sin embargo, en general, les gusta el software libre FOSS. Así que no puedo ver cómo Microsoft iría a la guerra en contra de la comunidad. … Hay una buena posibilidad de que la coexistencia pacífica de Microsoft con el software libre seguirá y cada vez más fructífera. … Microsoft no tiene ese tipo de problemas [de lavar sus acciones]. … Es más realista esperar un titular de una patente que hacer es la concesión de licencias en condiciones “equitativas”, “razonables” y “no discriminatorias” (FRAND[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#RAND]). … Las ofertas de licencia son generalmente una buena noticia … Microsoft sólo demandó a esas empresas porque no estaban absolutamente dispuestos a hacer un acuerdo de licencias. En cada uno de los casos, … La clave para mí es que todas esas demandas se podrían haber evitado fácilmente. Si Microsoft sigue usando sus patentes en la forma cooperativa, razonable que los ha utilizado hasta ahora, entonces no creo que haya una amenaza a los proyectos de software libre o las empresas.
Esta es una vergonzosa defensa de la estrategia de Microsoft contra el software libre. Según el correo electrónico de Microsoft expuestas en el Microsoft vs Comes caso antimonopolio, está claro que el objetivo de Microsoft era imponer costes externos, los “riesgos” y el miedo a los usuarios de GNU/Linux y las empresas. El ataque fue planeado en 2002, ejecutado en 2004 y continúa hasta nuestros días[http://slashdot.org/~twitter/journal/219107]. Microsoft se jacta de que han anotó docenas, si no cientos de contribuyentes de licencia, las empresas que utilizan software de Microsoft que no posee. Florian describe esta extorsión judicial como “cooperativa”, “justa”, “razonable” y “no discriminatoria”. Me pregunto si él sentiría lo mismo si yo tuviera que decirle que tengo una patente sobre FUD, pero yo no quiero que deje de escribir FUD, yo sólo quiero mi parte justa de compensación, el 25% es suficiente, de lo contrario lo voy a atar en el tribunal por la próxima década, embargo de sus escritos en los EE.UU. y la UE y crear una serie de redes para trabajar en su reputación a través de mi extensa red de publicaciones técnicas, empresas de relaciones públicas, abogados y lobbysts. Tan pronto como se tome la molestia de pagar, voy a establecer una media docena de servidores proxy después de él. Cuando eso es la realidad de otra persona, eso está bien con él.
Su reciente trabajo ha costado mucho a su reputación. La gente se percató de que era la fuente de la FUD de los derechos de autor de Android y pensarón mal de él. Los ataques en contra de “Groklie”, PJ, probablemente le costarón más. En la manera típica de matón de Microsoft, está culpando al golpe a su reputación a PJ y a otros que se han dado cuenta de lo que está haciendo. █
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA