Software patents are gradually losing their grip on the industry, not just in the world at large but also in the US (genesis of software patents). A few days ago an interview was published in which Simon Phipps (OSI) spoke about the goal of eradicating software patents and explained the latest turn of events as follows: “The Supreme Court in their judgment created a very clear test to work out whether a software patent was going to be valid or not. What they said was that, they said that there could still be software patents, but that simply taking something that is not patent‑eligible like an algorithm and then claiming that it’s patentable because it runs on a computer is not sufficient to actually establish patentability.

“They said that to get a software patent, the software that you have has got to improve the computer significantly. Because of that, the standard for getting software patents has been dramatically increased by the Alice decision.

“The federal circuit court then referred to the Alice decision, and decided not even to proceed to find out if there had been infringement on the Digitech case because they declared that the image processing software was not a significant improvement to the computer. Rather, it was a computer implementing a non‑patent‑eligible technique.”

Based on the article “Appeals court knocks out computer bingo patents” and some that are citing it, yet another software patent has just dropped dead. “Silly software patents are finally on notice at the Federal Circuit,” says the summary and lawyers do some legal analysis (not challenging the ruling but interpreting it). Progressive sites like TechDirt use a clever headline and say: “Another day, another story of stupid software patents getting stomped out of existence thanks to the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank ruling. As we’ve been noting, this ruling is looking like it’s going to invalidate a ton of software patents (and that’s a good thing). The latest one dumped was an attempt to patent bingo online. Yes, bingo. The lower court had already rejected the patent using previous Supreme Court rulings against patenting “abstract ideas.” Now, with the Alice ruling in hand, the Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) completed the stomping out of the bingo patent.”

Based on this same site, citing the post “Patent Troll Landmark Technology Sues eBay For Challenging Its Patents; EBay Responds With Anti-SLAPP Motion”, there is bullying over the suggestion that some patents need re-examining. To quote: “Over at Popehat, there’s a fascinating story about the depths to which patent trolls will go to “protect” their business models. The story involves Landmark Technologies, a troll we wrote about earlier this year for its rather aggressive take on patent trolling. Landmark holds patent 6,289,319: ‘Automatic Business and Financial Transaction Processing System.’ Or, as the EFF puts it more succinctly: paying with a credit card online. eBay recognized that Landmark’s trolling was bad news, and filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for a re-exam of three patents. The USPTO initially recognized eBay’s request, noting that there were “substantial” questions about the patentability in those patents. While it eventually left two of the patents alone, it dumped many of the claims in a third patent.”

Remember how back in early August an invalidated patent caused much trouble for that aggressor called Apple.

There is a real opportunity here for change. Patents on software can now be eliminated. Rather than actively fight software patents Google is just promising not to sue. What a wasted opportunity and misguided strategy.

Back in 2013, Google announced its plans to not sue anybody who had implemented open-source versions of its MapReduce algorithm. Since then, the company has expanded what it calls its “Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge” to a number of other patents. Today it is announcing its largest expansion of this program to date, with the addition of 152 additional patents. This brings the total number of patents included in this program to 245.

Google ought to do more to end software patents, not just acquire some and then promise not to sue.

Meanwhile down in New Zealand, a lawyers’ site claims that changes are coming:

On 13 September the new Patents Act will come into force – whether you’re ready for it or not. So, too, will the Patents Regulations 2014 which were ratified by an Order in Council on 11 August.

Everything, then, is set. This article thus serves as something of a recap on the extent of the changes under the new regime.

Many of the provisions of the new Act are the same as the current Patents Act 1953. There will then be some continuity for patentees and businesses. However, two very significant changes are being implemented which concern how IPONZ examiners consider patent applications and the limits placed on the patentability of software.

IPONZ examiners will shortly have to examine patent applications to determine whether the claims made in respect of, for example, a product involve “an inventive step”. The inclusion of the law of “inventive step” in the new Act represents a higher threshold for hopeful patentees to meet.

There was lobbying by proprietary software giants to bring software patents to this island, but they have not been exceptionally successful. This is of course good news that reminds us that the end of software patents as elusive as we once assumed it to be. █

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. █

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:

1. Open Source Design Offers Greater Control Over Personal Gadgets

   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.

2. It’s Time to Build an Open-Source Music Industry: A Chat with CASH Music

   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.

3. Open-Source Capitalism and the HOPE Global Financial Dignity Summit

   Open-source capitalism is the same exact thing that made early America a successful nation to begin with.

4. Open source bioinformatics firm raises £1m

   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.

5. Can A Smart Beehive Network Of Open-Source Hives Help Stop The Bee Apocalypse?

   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.

6. Public Labs Open Source Smartphone Spectrometer Let’s You Find Your Wavelength

7. Out in the Open: The German Plot to Give You Complete Control of Your Phone

   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.

8. An open source robotic lawn mower

9. ArduMower Open Source Arduino Based Robot Lawn Mower (video)

   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.

10. Open-source through the lens of a microscope

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… █

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. █

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). █

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. █

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. █

(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.

Summary: Michael Tiemann says that Florian Müller “proceeds to spout nonsense” after insulting the Open Source Initiative (OSI) regarding defence of Free/Open Source software

MICROSOFT is lusting for Novell’s patents and Microsoft Florian keeps licking his lips over the possibility that Microsoft et al. will get some so-called “FOSS patents” to threaten Linux with. It’s rather transparent based on what he writes, especially the reckless gloat (and insults) in his Twitter stream. He’s not alone though.

IDG’s Jon Brodkin, known to us for the Microsoft whitewashing efforts (we recently gave examples [1, 2, 3] and he too speaks to Florian), says that “U.S. Antitrust will review Microsoft/Novell patent sale for 30 more days”. Florian is meanwhile spreading disinformation; they try to rush the judgment or push this bit of disinformation while Florian deceives people (there is an inaccurate CPTN report in ZDNet UK, maybe as a result of this) when in fact even his online friend Maureen O’Gara realises that there is no clearance. Brodkin, a Microsoft blogger, is spinning it as defence for Microsoft (“Shield… From Lawsuits”) [1, 2]; it is arguably this headline which makes him a fan of the deal, just like Florian. The patent deal is atrocious (FSF and OSI agree and even work jointly against it, in an unprecedented fashion), whereas Microsoft boosters are predicting or heralding its success before it’s even cleared. Are they trying to influence the decision by generating fallacious claims? Truthfully, we wrote about this before. Since the pro-Microsoft crowd is so eager to see those patents falling into Microsoft’s arms, we know for sure that the FSF and OSI are correct and to quote a response from “barney”, aimed at Brodkin’s spin (headline is “Novell Patent Sale to Shield Microsoft, Apple, EMC and Oracle From Lawsuits”):

Shield? don’t you mean sword

I really don’t see Microsoft, Apple, nor Oracle being passive with regards to using those patents and they way I see it, they will be used to cut down open source technology( aka Linux ) based products.

There is only one resoponse and one that does not take into account the companies’ prior attitude towards competition and how they use patents. They are aggressors. Meanwhile, the propaganda machine of Microsoft Florian kicks into gear again and the head of the OSI responds:

Florian Mueller accuses that the OSI is spouting nonsense, and then proceeds to spout nonsense. I’m calling him on it.
The FCO has clearly stated the conditions under which a deal can and must be blocked, which is when when the CPTN transaction would “create or strengthen a dominant position of one or several CPTN-investors on the markets on which they are active.” Florian thinks that is an impossibly high bar, because according to him, there’s really no way regulators can be expected to do their jobs. I reject such a cynical conclusion. And I am heartened that the regulators in both the US and EU are reading carefully both the legal requirements and the facts and evidence of the transaction. We have already seen a huge change to the structure of the CPTN transaction, indicating that there were clearly some very serious issues with the first structuring.
In the world of open source, a rejected patch is never automatically accepted merely because some random changes were made and the patch resubmitted. The patch must address the substantive issues, and must do so in a way that is accepted by the community. It is accepted when the *maintainer* says its good enough, not when the submitter claims it’s good enough.
The revised proposed CPTN transaction did address one of the many concerns raised by the OSI, but it leaves most of the concerns unaddressed. The FCO requested our input–as members of the community–and we have given our answer. We should let the FCO do their job, and not second-guess their authority, their ability, or their integrity.

As the next commenter pointed out:

I wish this summary, like most on Linux Today, had identified the author of the article. This is an important piece of information that I use when deciding whether or not to click through and read an article.

And the next one after that:

Thanks for that informative post, Michael. When is saw the link was to FOSS Patents, I decided to avoid clicking.

Barnie asks: “Florian – do you feed any of the Microsoft patent deals are justified?”

Over the last few years we have seen Microsoft make deals (it would seem by threat of legal action) extract patent deals from the likes of HTC, TomTom and many others.
Do you believe any of these deals are justified and do you believe the current system is working?

Florian appears a couple of times in this thread, only to insist on the same spin and distortion of facts (his main tactic, also against messengers he does not agree with, e.g. Groklaw and Techrights). Rainer Weikusat closes this conversation with:

> 1) If it were up to me, patents of that kind would
> not be granted in the first place.
.
But it isn’t ‘up to you’, meaning, any statement on
this from your side is entirely hypothetical: No
‘reality check’ of its truthfulness will ever occur
and in the context of the actual question, it is also
completely irrelevant.
.
> I don’t believe that it’s reasonable to grant
> 20-year monopolies on software-related ideas. This
> view is independent from whether we’re talking about
> a Microsoft FAT, Apple multitouch, Oracle virtual
> machine, Amazon one-click or Google Doodle patent
> (yes, they patented that one and the patent was
> granted recently, and in my view it’s the most
> abusrd one in this list).
.
It is at least about some original invention, as
opposed tasking someone with ‘design and implement
a way to add “long filenames” to a DOS-directory
in a way which will not disturb software written to
use 8.3 names’ (something any decent programmer should
be easily capable of) and then patenting the result
of this work in order to hamper independent,
interoperable implementations.
.
> 2) Given that such patents do exist nonetheless,
> it’s the normal course of business that right
> holders want to use them. If they grant licenses on
> reasonable terms, that’s infinitely better than any
> strategic exclusionary use of patents
.
The interesting question, however, is what precisely
constitutes ‘a reasonable term’. For instance, legally,
Linux is prohibited from being fully interoperable
with systems creating filesystems using the ‘long name
addition method’ patented by Microsoft, except
insofar proprietary kernel modules of legally dubious
status are used. And in my opinion, this is ‘strategic,
exclusionary use of patents’: While a license to use
this ‘invention’ may be available to ‘companies’ it
is only granted subject to the condition that said
companies to not participiate in large-scale
collaborative development efforts Microsoft considers
to be potentially detrimental to its ongoing business
success. This also conveniently ignores the fact that
a lot of ‘development’ is not done by ‘companies’
producing software because of its ‘sale value’ (and
thus, capable of paying royalties).

The legitimacy of Microsoft Florian in FOSS circles which he pretends to champion is at an all-time low. Anything which could be attributed to him in the past is being superseded by unacceptable deception and hostility towards software freedom, including crass behaviour and language. Florian the author is not Florian the lobbyist and he admits that he never wrote FOSS. █

(ODF | PDF | English/original)

Resumen: La Iniciativa de Open Source OSI, intenta recuperar su legitimidad y también explica que Microsoft está muy lejos de ser un amigo de Open Source.

Los DIARIOS posts han contenido ya noticias sobre una reforma prevista en la OSI, que es la organización detrás de la marca de fábrica de Open Source. La OSI ha sido siempre renuente ser influenciada por Microsoft, que intentó manterla a corta distancia[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm%27s_length_principle]. Hay un blogger en la OSI que se atreve de vez en cuando a decir la verdad sobre la relación de Microsoft con Open Source y aquí esta lo suyo sobre el amor de Microsoft hacia Open Source[http://www.opensource.org/blog/MicrosoftLovesOpenSource.html]:

Cuando hablo a la gente de Microsoft acerca de todo su mal comportamiento, es cierta otra parte de Microsoft que si la ignoramos eventualmente veremos la luz. Eso parece como una mala estrategia de nuestros “buenos amigos”. Si Microsoft ama sinceramente al Código Abierto, es hora de una estrategia corporativa. Hagamos esto simple:

* ¿Cómo sobre una promesa de la patente similar pero mejor que la promesa de patentes de Red Hat? Vaya un paso más al futuro y amplíelo a todas las licencias de código abierto.

* ¿Qué acerca de invitar a la OSI para que se una a la CPTN? Eso haría cada uno más cómodo creer que es un consorcio defensivo y no un esquema para destruir a el código abierto.

* ¿Qué acerca de un cambio del tono del mensaje de la comercialización a “desarrollo cooperativo”, en vez de el de la “interoperabilidad”?

Microsoft, quisiera ver este amor como algo más que un esquema de comercialización gaseoso. ¡Demuéstrenos el amor!

La fuente de este enteramente deshonesto “Microsoft Ama a Open Source” FUD de es el escritor de IDG – un troll de presión del Subnet de Microsoft que hace algunos días puso a Stallman y Stalin en el mismo título (entonces ligado a “Microsoft ama a Open Source” dentro de la misma entrevista con Stallman). Los que fingen ese Microsoft pueden ser campeón de chantajes y ética al mismo tiempo no están claramente interesados en la naturaleza verdadera; hacen Relaciones Públicas PR.

Notas de traducción:
Hoy Lunes 29 de Marzo, Microsoft demandó a Barnes & Noble y FoxConn por el uso de Adroide on su lector Nook[http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_4_0_t&usg=AFQjCNEzYOo4yhEtRoc2eXvXm9XtYSaTZQ&did=2bccaf5d3e51893e&cid=8797676060261&ei=HgSITeHKMIL8lQTn4Id3&rt=SECTION&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cultofmac.com%2Fmicrosoft-sues-barnes-noble-foxconn-over-nook-patent-infringement%2F87503]. Barnes & Noble tuvo el coraje de negarse a firmar un acuerdos sobre patentes que involucran a GNU/Linux como lo hicieron: Linspire, Xandros, TurboLinux, Acer, HTC, Amazon entre otros que ahora están pagando por GNU/Linux. Microsoft está imponiendo un GNU/Linux Tax que no le corresponde. Esperemos que Barnes & Noble no se doblegue ante este burdo chantaje y no pague por protección a estos modernos gangsters.

Este es el amor de Microsoft hacia Open Source. Los países Latino Americanos debemos cerrar filas en contra de Microsoft que sólo busca la entrega del futuro de las nuevas generaciones con el uso de sus supuestos “estándares” y tecnologías que sólo buscan sofocar las empresas latino americanas y del Tercer Mundo con su objetivo de Colonialismo Digital. Miremos a Brasil y la India para el bienestar de nuestras futuras generaciones.

Si, Microsoft no ha cambiado busca la destrucción del código abierto y de todo aquello que vaya en contra de sus intereses, eso esta es su ADN por tanto seamos precavidos y miremos todo lo que venga de ellos y su prensa comprada con escepticismo.

Eduardo Landaveri translates the latter new part into English as follows:

“I added to the end Notes of translation: Today Monday 29 of March, Microsoft demanded to Barnes & Noble and FoxConn for the use of Android on its Nook reader. Barnes & Noble had the courage to refuse to sign agreements on patents that involve GNU/Linux, like others did: Linspire, Xandros, TurboLinux, Acer, HTC, Amazon among others that now are paying for GNU/Linux. Microsoft is imposing a GNU/Linux Tax that does not correspond to them. Let us hope that Barnes & Noble will not give in to this coarse blackmail and won’t not pay for protection to these modern gangsters.

“This it is the love of Microsoft towards Open Source. The Latin American countries must close up against Microsoft that only looks for subjugating the future of the new generations with the use of its supposed “standards” and technologies that they only look for to choke the Latin Americana and Third World companies with its goal of Digital Colonialism. We must look upon Brazil and India for the well-being of our future generations.

“Yes, Microsoft has not changed. It only looks for the destruction of the open source and of everything what it goes against his interests, this is its DNA therefore we must be cautious every time we read everything what comes from them and its bribed press & treat it with skepticism.” █

Many thanks to Eduardo Landaveri of the Spanish portal of Techrights.

Summary: The Open Source Initiative seeks to regain legitimacy and it also explains that Microsoft is far from a friend of Open Source

THE DAILY links have already contained news about a planned reform at the OSI, which is the organisation behind the Open Source brand. The OSI has always been reluctant to be intruded by Microsoft, which it tried to keep at arm’s length. There is one blogger at the OSI who occasionally dares to say the truth about Microsoft’s relationship with Open Source and here is his latest about “Microsoft Loves Open Source”:

When I speak to folks at Microsoft all bad behavior is “some other part of Microsoft” that if we just ignore will eventually see the light. That seems like a bad strategy from our “good friends”. If Microsoft sincerely loves open source, it is time for a corporate strategy. Let’s make this simple:

* How about a “Patent Promise” similar but better than Red Hat’s Patent Promise? Go one step further and extend it to all open source licenses.
* How about inviting the Open Invention Network to join CPTN? That would make everyone more comfortable that it is a defensive consortium and not a scheme to crush open source.
* How about changing the tone of the marketing message to “cooperative development” instead of “interoperability”?

Microsoft, I’d like to see this love as more than a cheesy marketing scheme. Show us the love!

The source of this wholly dishonest “Microsoft Loves Open Source” FUD is the Microsoft Subnet writer from IDG — a booster who some days ago put Stallman and Stalin in the same headline (then linked to “Microsoft Loves Open Source” within the same interview with Stallman). Those who pretend that Microsoft can be champion of racketeering and “ethics” at the same time are clearly not interested in the true nature; they do PR. █

–Robert Scoble, former Microsoft evangelist

Summary: Vista Phony 7 forbids the use of Mono, based on what the terms simply say; in fact, Vista Phony 7 bans Microsoft’s own OSI-approved licences

THERE IS some laugh-worth news in Mono land. While Novell keeps increasing its influence inside the Linux Foundation it is also increasing Microsoft’s influence inside GNU/Linux with projects like Mono and Moonlight, which are partly Microsoft releases because of the code they contain and the manager of the project, a Microsoft MVP who raves about them [1, 2] even though they receive little attention. As we explained last year, Moonlight had lost a lot of momentum and so had Mono, to a lesser degree. The problem with both is that owing to the FSF sort of denouncing them, more people do realise they are the patent burden a lot of other people claim them to be. It is not just a patent issue but also an API issue and a copyright issue because Microsoft owns part of Mono (and Moonlight, which depends on Mono and uses codecs from Microsoft). There is MS-PL-licensed code right inside Mono and since Microsoft bans free code from Vista Phony 7, there too Mono may not be allowed. “Microsoft Bans Open Source From Windows Phone Marketplace” says this new article:

Jan Wildeboer points at clause ‘e’ which states, “The Application must not include software, documentation, or other materials that, in whole or in part, are governed by or subject to an Excluded License, or that would otherwise cause the Application to be subject to the terms of an Excluded License. ”

It is beyond comprehension how this clause will help Microsoft in getting more developers or great applications. What I can understand is Microsoft is trying to discourage developers from using open source model for application development. Is it a well calculated move by Microsoft to attack the free and open source community or yet another immitation of Apple’s App Store?

“Microsoft bans open source from the Marketplace” says also the British press:

Jan Wildeboer, open source evangelist and Red Hat employee, was one of the first to spot the restrictions in Microsoft’s licence this week. “One thing is extremely obvious,” Wildeboer claims in a post to his personal blog. “Microsoft wants to keep its platform clear of Free Software. Period.”

As evidence, Wildeboer points to Article 5 of the Application Requirements section of the Microsoft Application Provider Agreement, which states: “The Application must not include software, documentation, or other materials that, in whole or in part, are governed by or subject to an Excluded License, or that would otherwise cause the Application to be subject to the terms of an Excluded License.”

The reference to ‘Excluded License’ refers to an earlier section which explicitly names the GNU General Public License version 3 and its Lesser derivative – two of the most common open source licences around – along with ‘any equivalents.’

Our member gnufreex wrote a detailed analysis of it, which says:

First of all, application delivery mechanism for WP7 (or call it “App Store”) is completely incompatible with Free Software. User has no means of getting the source code, nor installing modified software. That makes all software received through this mechanism non-free, regardless whether previous license was BSD, GPL or any other FSF or OSI certified license. In case of copyleft license, this would be a violation, but that is besides the point. Acquired software is not Free in practical sense, in a way that user can’t help himself by examining the code, which one of basic Freedoms that Free Software gives.

[...]

Clause (ii) is more of the same, but clause (iii) I think might be FUD. No Free Software license requires redistributing at no charge, and license that would require that would never pass FSF and OSI certification process. So it is possible that this clause is there only so that Microsoft advocates can spray FUD on GPL, something they love to do. It is bad for Microsoft if people talk about clause(i), that Microsoft banned every copyleft license, but it is good for Microsoft if people talk about clause (iii) and misinterpret GPL as anti-capitalist license (which is not). If that makes one coder stay away from GPL, then that is good for MSFT.

[...]

WP7 would be nice chance for Microsoft to make a statement that they are never ever planing to force Mono underground with software patents. They could do that by allowing and encouraging GPLv3 apps in their app store. After all, only .NET developers can get those patent grants, since noting else runs on WP7. But sadly, Microsoft is doing just the opposite. Their double-ban of GPLv3 sends message to their devotees in Mono movement: they need to use permissive license without patent protection if they plan to have proprietary port to WP7. This shows that Microsoft wants to reserve right to sue against Mono ecosystem, as we already know by now. Will Mono app developers prefer GPL or Microsoft walled garden? Well, considering that Mono leader is “psyched” about developing for WP7 phones, my guess is that Mono devs will want to follow the leader and port their stuff to WP7. Profile of people who are endorsing Mono is such that they will probably do whatever Microsoft and De Icaza asks them to.

But wider FLOSS community needs to continue shunning Mono because Microsoft obviously didn’t change it’s mind. They are still making sure they don’t give patent grant to Mono users, and are not shy to double-ban licenses which would give them needed guarantees.

Simon Phipps says that “Microsoft Bans Its Own License” and this includes Mono ramifications:

But his critics aren’t accurate either. Most of the criticism I’ve seen tries to turn this into the old GPL vs BSD wars, claiming “it’s just Microsoft continuing to ban the GPL and who could blame them”. But Microsoft’s prohibition goes further than the GPL licenses it’s using as an example; it says “Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses”. So this makes it impossible to use, for example, the Eclipse Public License – ruling out anything from the whole, large Eclipse ecosystem – or the Mozilla Public License or any other “weak copyleft” license.

That includes, remarkably, Microsoft’s own OSI-approved Microsoft Reciprocal License and possibly even the Microsoft Public License, according to one legal expert. As a consequence, use of open source libraries under these licenses – which not even Apple’s byzantine regulations object to – is apparently prohibited.

That might plausibly include Mono, based on Microsoft’s own .NET but partly licensed under MS-PL. It also means that Microsoft’s new partner Nokia could have trouble using it’s Qt graphics environment on the platform as it’s under the GPL. Some legally-qualified commentators are even suggesting that, if the first use of “the software” in the definition of “Excluded License” means the open source software and not the application being submitted, then all open source licenses are barred. I hope that’s just bad drafting.

“Ooh, ooh,” wrote Phipps some hours ago, “Miguel still hates me”. Microsoft MVP de Icaza and his minions are currently attacking all the messengers by belittling their intelligence. It’s rather pathetic really, but that’s just the mentality of Mono bullies, who seem to inherit their aggression from ‘mother ship’ Microsoft.

Here is The H saying that “Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace” (we are quoting just headlines by the way, as they are quite consistent and pass the fact-checking phase).

The prohibition of free software licences appears to be Microsoft’s own response to the issues raised by the appearance and later removal of GPL applications such as VLC from the Apple iPhone App Store. Commercial application stores like Apple’s and Microsoft’s do not have mechanisms to make source code for applications directly available. They also have some form of DRM lock which prevents the binary being passed on to another user, on all applications, even ones available for no charge in the market. It is these restrictions that make the stores incompatible with licences such as the GPL.

In other words, Microsoft hardly tries to make Vista Phony 7 succeed.

In Wayne’s latest part of “Microsoft Death Watch” he looks at Microsoft’s own reports sceptically and reaches the conclusion that Microsoft loses a lot of money in phones (known fact for years, Microsoft hid it by merging divisions/operations).

1) Microsoft’s sales of Windows Phone 7 haven’t been all that good. It appears that WP7 is costing Microsoft more than it’s making in sales. Charlie over at Semi-Accurate has reported that Microsoft is giving WP7 away. If what Charlie says is true, it’s also likely to put downward pressure on the price of Windows for personal computers.

2) Check row 15. Microsoft Business, which includes Office, is Microsoft’s best profit center. The problem is that Microsoft Office only works on the personal computer version of Windows. Anything which impacts on the number of personal computer Windows licenses that are sold will hurt Office sales. There aren’t versions of Office for tablets or phones, which are the fastest growing segments of the personal computer market.

3) HP is planning to use WebOS in phones, tablets, and personal computers. WebOS is a Linux based operating system, somewhat similar to Android, another Linux based operating system, and Apple’s IOS, a BSD based operating system. Windows Mobile, the predecessor of WP7, which was supposed to take this market never did sell well.

So here we have a dying phone platform which even the NoWin deal [1, 2, 3, 4] cannot rescue. Microsoft is banning itself. Hilarious way to end the week. █

Summary: Novell’s patents and their destination at CPTN/Microsoft/AttachMSFT [sic] are coming under fire by the FSFE, OSI, and FSF (the latter two formally complain to the US Department of Justice)

“OSI and FSF jointly refer CPTN purchase of Novell patents to US Department of Justice,” Simon Phipps writes early in the morning. For some background see [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

So the people behind “open source” and the FSF too (although Michael and Simon already have good relationships with the FSF) have this to say:

January 19, 2011 (update 2) – The Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice has acknowledged receipt of the following correspondence (with attachment):

I am writing to you this morning in my capacity as President of the Open Source Initiative, a US 501(c)3 non-profit organization. Last month the OSI filed a statement with the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) outlining our deep concerns about a proposed transaction whereby four companies, Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, and EMC, would create a new non-practicing entity (NPE) to acquire and hold Novell’s entire portfolio of 882 patents. Since making that filing, we have been joined by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and have updated that statement to represent that both our communities–the open source community and the free software community–are concerned that CPTN represents a potential broadside not against any particular product in the market today, but against one of the only viable sources of competition for these companies in software today: the free, libre, and open source software (FLOSS) communities.

Attached is our joint statement that reflects both our consensus thinking on the subject and our joint appeal that DOJ investigate the true purpose of CPTN.

If there is any other information you require from myself, any OSI board member, or the OSI as a whole, please do not hesitate to let us know. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Michael Tiemann
President, Open Source Initiative

Sadly, the US Department of Justice is worthless. It’s occupied by Microsoft cronies and right now it’s occupied with attacking Wikileaks, treating it as though it is a terrorist group.

Phipps later expanded in his IDG-run blog, noting that “OSI And FSF In Unprecedented Collaboration To Protect Software Freedom” (not just “Openness”, so well done, Simon Phipps):

Faced with a potentially large threat to free/libre and open source software from patent consortium CPTN, the two organisations have collaborated publicly for the first time.

“Novell folks seem to have vested interest in infecting Free Software with Microsoft patents,” gnufreex wrote some hours ago. “Maybe that was part of the deal” (OOXML, Mono, and Moonlight are obvious examples of it). Boycott Novell. █

Summary: Microsoft et al. head for the door just shortly after OSI files a complaint to the German Federal Cartel Office

TECHRIGHTS wishes to begin with the good news. Those patents which Novell was going to hand over to Microsoft? Well, that ain’t gonna happen on the face of it. And with AttachMSFT [sic] still looking for a loan with which to buy Novell (more on that in a later post), the whole Novell acquisition is now in jeopardy, shareholder lawsuits notwithstanding.

Here is just one article about the latest regarding CPTN:

A plan created by Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and EMC to create a consortium to acquire hundreds of Novell patents has been withdrawn after complaints from open source advocates, leaving the fate of the nearly half billion dollars’ worth of patents uncertain.

It was first revealed in mid December that the four companies had set up CPTN Holdings LLC to jointly acquire 882 Novell patents for $442 million.

The rest of Novell was to be sold to Attachmate for $2.2 billion, with that sale being “conditioned upon the closing of the proposed sale of certain intellectual property assets to CPTN Holdings LLC.” according to the original Novell press release about the acquisiton.

There were precursors too. “This went almost unnoticed,” wrote Carlo Piana about a week ago, “Novell-Attachmate HSR filing withdrawn, to be refiled today”. To quote:

Regulatory Matters (page 73)

Under the HSR Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, certain transactions, including the merger, may not be consummated unless certain waiting period requirements have expired or been terminated. The HSR Act provides that each party must file a pre-merger notification with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). A transaction notifiable under the HSR Act may not be completed until the expiration of a 30-calendar-day waiting period following the parties’ filing of their respective HSR Act notification forms or the early termination of that waiting period.

The parties to the merger originally filed their respective notification and report forms pursuant to the HSR Act with the FTC and DOJ on December 1, 2010 and the initial 30-day waiting period would have expired on December 31, 2010. In order to provide the DOJ with additional time to review the information submitted by the parties, Attachmate is voluntarily withdrawing its HSR Act notification form, effective December 31, 2010 and intends to re-file for the same transaction on or about January 3, 2011. The effect of this re-filing will also be to extend the waiting period under the HSR Act to a date 30 days from the date of the re-filing, unless earlier terminated or extended by the DOJ requesting additional information from the parties.

The merger was also subject to review and approval by the FCO. Attachmate, with the consent of Novell, filed the appropriate notification in Germany, and the FCO granted clearance to the merger transaction on December 23, 2010 stating that it will not oppose the merger transaction.

Under the HSR Act, the patent sale also may not be completed until the expiration of a 30-calendar-day waiting period following the filing by the parties to that transaction of their respective HSR Act notification

For those to whom the whole thing is news, see the previous post about the complaint in Germany or about CPTN in general. It’s almost as though the FTC is too corrupted from the inside, so they need to go to Europe for help investigating this. Here is the original complaint [PDF].

“But why were the involved parties’ minds suddenly changed?”As O’Reilly Radar put it the other day, this could become another SCO-like trouble. To quote: “As someone who has 10 shares of SCO framed and displayed in his bathroom, 2010 looked to be a very good year. The Beast from Utah finally exhausted all of its legal options, and cratered into a messy bankruptcy, leaving Novell with clear ownership of the Unix intellectual property that Linux may or may not incorporate. We all rejoiced, assuming that Linux would enjoy a happy existence in the future, unworried by fears of corporate protection rackets trying to intimidate people into paying for the free OS.

“Then this fall, Novell announced that it was selling more than 800 of their patents to a consortium that includes Microsoft as a major player. Suddenly, all of the angst about IP attacks against Linux were back on the table, but now with known Linux-hater Microsoft appearing to hold the reins. Will further legal hijinks ensue? Only time will tell.”

Apparently not, assuming the latest news will stick and eventually become a confirmed reality. But why were the involved parties’ minds suddenly changed? Our reader Satipera noticed that a software patents’ crass booster, Patent WatchTroll, weighs in on the subject by writing that “The Meaning of “Open Source”: Patented by Microsoft”. Frankly, the headline alone is so inane that it seems automatically- or stochastically-generated and Satipera seems to agree. He simply calls this “Completely clueless.” To give just a flavour of this mind dropping:

Apparently, Novell was committed to open source and that makes it acceptable to the OSI that they owned patents, but the fact that patents might be used for a competitive advantage by a patent owner, and used to stop infringers from infringing is troubling. So troubling that they are urging the German government to investigate. See Open source campaigners urge investigation of Novell patent sale and Novell’s Microsoft patent sale referred to regulators. So it seems that the position of the OSI is that those who are anti-software patent and committed to open source are the only ones who can own patents without necessitating an investigation by the government. Breathtakingly self-serving if you ask me.

In any event, wouldn’t it be ironic if the movement developed at least in part to prevent monopolization of the software industry in Redmond wound up being responsible for handing Microsoft rights to every program ever created? Perhaps it is Microsoft that is behind the open source movement. Who knows, but several things seem abundantly clear, namely that nothing in life is every truly free, and the true meaning of the term “open source” may be “patented by Microsoft.”

On the contrary, Brian Proffitt came up with an accurate analysis which on January seventh scrutinised what Microsoft was doing:

For the record, I’m not terribly happy about the patent purchase agreement that’s running in parallel to the Novell-Attachmate acquisition deal. The thought of 882 Novell patents getting sold to CPTN Holdings, LLC (a holding consortium made up of Apple, EMC, Microsoft, and Oracle America) does not sit well with me.

Now, also for the record, a source inside one of these four companies told All Things Digital’s John Paczkowski “‘We get to buy in at a cheap price and get a license to a very valuable portfolio… It’s cheap defensive insurance.’”

I’m sure.

It is, like anything else in the world, possible that this is the reason behind the patent grab. If these are covering technologies that affect networking and cloud computing, areas that everyone and their sister are trying to get into, then a defensive stance makes sense.

But even if these patents have no direct correlation to open source, do you think the CPTN members will really miss a chance to spread some FUD if it suits them to? After all, in 2004, Steve Ballmer made the claim Linux violated 228 Microsoft patents, a claim that was revised upwards to 235 in 2007. Who will lay odds that in late 2011, if this patent purchase agreement goes through, that number will change to, say, 1117 patents?

Alex Handy argued that “Fall was a bad season for Linux” partly because of this news about CPTN:

The Novell deal sends 882 of its patents to CPTN Holdings in exchange for US$450 million. Microsoft expressed pleasure at bringing Novell technology in-house, but declined to comment further on its intentions for these patents.

Meanwhile, in October, Red Hat was back in US District Court, Eastern District of Texas with Acacia Research over litigation relating to Acacia’s patents on systems and methods for exchanging data and commands between an object-oriented system and a relational system. While such patents could be used to take down almost every database-backed applications ever created, Red Hat decided to settle with Acacia for an undisclosed sum.

On the face of it, people may just forget this whole thing ever happened, but Novell’s buyer too might walk away. Wouldn’t that be memorable? We choose to believe that there was maybe a conspiracy to hide — something malicious which had Microsoft retreat before further revelations could be made. Microsoft must not have expected formal (perhaps federal) complains to be made, later to unravel more participants in what had the word “cartel” come up. We wrote about this last month and so did many American news sites [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17], British news sites, and even former Novell employees like Zonker who argued: “According to the letter, “the proposed CPTN transaction represents a potentially new, and unprecedented threat against open source software.” I’d go farther than that, though. The CPTN transaction is a threat against competition in larger marketplace, period. Yes, open source is in danger — but pretty much any legitimate competition in the areas of operating systems, virtualization, cloud computing, middleware, etc. I’m sure Red Hat feels uneasy about this unholy alliance, but then again so do Google and Parallels. Of course, OSI is only responsible for speaking up for the open source community, not the entire computing industry.”

“On the face of it, people may just forget this whole thing ever happened, but Novell’s buyer too might walk away.”Despite being a former Novell employee, he wishes this will fail. Zonker can be commended for not being loyal to Novell to the point of self-imposed blindness. Further he says: “There’s still time before the deal closes, though. Here’s hoping that OSI’s voice is heard, and that it’s not alone. Many companies and communities stand to be affected. There’s no reason to stand by silently and let Apple, EMC, Microsoft, and Oracle increase their collective patent warchests without any scrutiny whatsoever.”

Zonker’s colleague wrote:

Indeed, the number and significance of Novell’s open source patents call for scrutiny of CPTN from regulators. Novell is nearly as old as the personal computer, and when CPTN’s newly acquired patents came to light, we, along with other open source observers, expressed concern about a Microsoft-led consortium inheriting hundreds of them.

Simon Phipps (OSI), who took part in this complaint, published a blog post about it and separately he wrote: “I’ve had a steady stream of investment analysts asking me for private advice on the Novell/CPTN deal. No others, just them. Not giving it.” From his blog post we have:

I’m a member of the OSI Board, who were all involved in the drafting process. This is a significant new step for OSI, who have not previously referred a matter to competition authorities. It reflects the changing emphasis for the organisation, shifting from a role focussed almost exclusively on approving licenses to a more general role representing the interests of the open source movement.

Taking positions on important issues internationally is a valuable counter-balance to the influence of computer industry trade associations, and I hope OSi will keep doing it. That’s one of the reasons we’re shifting to a representative governance – a process which just progressed to the next step in the volunteer Governance Commitee, and which I hope will be completed before mid-2011.

Phipps also appears in some comments on the original post announcing this complaint.

In relation to the CPTN announcement, Groklaw admits its mistake (where Techrights got it right). To quote some relevant parts of the article “OSI Asks German FCO to Look Into the Proposed Patent Deal & You Can Too”:

Remember when Novell won in SCO v. Novell before the jury in Utah in March of this year, and they put out the statement pledging their loyalty to Linux and how they would protect it?

Novell is very pleased with the jury’s decision confirming Novell’s ownership of the Unix copyrights, which SCO had asserted to own in its attack on Linux. Novell remains committed to promoting Linux, including by defending Linux on the intellectual property front.

This decision is good news for Novell, for Linux, and for the open source community.

Like a dope, I believed them. Maybe you did too. Maybe your business relied on that promise and decided to use Linux as a result. Now what? If you get sued for patent infringement over those 882 patents Novell wants to sell to the Microsoft consortium, would you have a cause of action against Novell as a result of what OSI calls a “major disruption to the competitive landscape.” Ask your lawyer. But if the German FCO is saying it welcomes comments from the public, why not tell them about it, particularly if you have a business that could be directly affected by this proposed patent deal, if this is how you feel?

In short, the good news is that the whole CPTN plot is self-nuking at this moment. The question which remains to be answered is, did the complaint from the OSI play a role in derailing this part of the Novell deal? If so, there was probably something rogue to hide. █

Update: it is now being reported that the CPTN arrangement ought to be still on, despite reports like this one.

Summary: Latest dangers to the identity of “Open Source”, which increasingly means all sorts of things that depart completely from software freedom (or from software as a whole)

UNLESS a brand, a trademark, or a name gets actively defended, it ceases to have a meaning. When the word “freedom” is used in sentences like “freedom to fight”, the label “terrorism” comes to mean anything someone disagrees with and Hoover just becomes synonymous with any vacuum cleaner, there is danger that the language we all use to communicate (i.e. transmit images, connotations, and feelings that accompany) will get warped beyond recognition.

“Open Source” as a term has been stress-tested for several years now. Several vendors constantly attempt to bend the term “open-source” (sometimes with a dash or minus) to better serve their marketing pitch, which also includes “cloud”, “2.0″, and other drop-in terms that are popular these days because they are associated with modernisation and advancement.

“”Open Source” as a term has been stress-tested for several years now.”The term “Free software” — not just “Open Source” — would get bent if it gained a lot of traction and became a sought-after trait — one that potentially makes the cut and appears in checklists as a requirement.

Watch this new pro-Microsoft (it seems like the firm is boosting Microsoft) release where Visual Studio is described as “Free platform”:

“There are literally thousands of open source projects across the net that graduates can sink their teeth into. Free platforms such as Microsoft’s Visual Studio Express series means that it costs very little to get involved, too.

“Free platforms,” eh? Microsoft has been openwashing Visual Studio for years and IDG’s fauxpen has just received a comment rebutting this.

It sometimes seems to us, as we explained earlier today, that IDG’s fauxpen source blog will happily grab the term “Open Source” and then ‘openwash’ almost everything that’s of value to the stakeholders (the blog is predominantly written by proprietary software folks). Right now they talk about open APIs as though it’s nearly the same as “Open Source” (Tim O’Reilly does the same thing).

How much should the term “Open Source” be interchanged and bent before it’s worth discarding for too broad a scope?

Another troubling pattern that we find is the illusion that Apple is “Open” or even “Open Source”; this is sometimes put forth quite sincerely by fans of this this large company (which does not lack marketing people, either).

“Welcome Apple, seriously,” says the headline of this new post which is crediting Apple with the MPEG4 push — the same one that actively threatens GNU/Linux and Free software at large. Just amazing.

Apple has been very careless and reckless when it comes to “Open Source”, but many Apple customers prefer not to see it. Apple has a history of exploiting Free software and sometimes just harming it in the process.

“Apple has a history of exploiting Free software and sometimes just harming it in the process.”What are Dana Blankenhorn and OStatic doing then? As stated correctly in first comment, by Martin Owens: “Except WebKit is based on Konquorer’s khtml library. So it’s not like Apple had a lot of choice in releasing the code.”

“Apple for me have been the worst company for their ability to misunderstand and abuse free software. They see it as public domain and not commons, which is a shame.

“They are not my friend.”

If Apple was to qualify as “Open Source”, that would mean that “Open Source” as a term is dead and buried. Earlier today we contacted the OSI regarding these issues. █

Summary: How the emergence of SkySQL weakens Monty’s case against the company which bought (and continues to maintain) MySQL

“SugarCRM jumps the Open Source shark claiming closed is open and it’s the rest of us who are mistaken,” wrote Simon Phipps in Twitter. Phipps used to be the Open Source symbol of Sun Microsystems (now he is in OSI), whose employees that moved to Oracle might as well attempt to pass ‘open’ core as “Open Source” (hot subject at the moment [1, 2, 3]). Roberto Galoppini has published an opinion on ‘open’ core from Giuseppe Maxia (Oracle/MySQL), who calls it the “pragmatic freedom”. As Pamela Jones (Groklaw) put it earlier this month, “I don’t share his views, but I thought you’d like to hear from an open core defender, who also happens to work at Oracle on MySQL, as he presents what’s been jokingly called the Yuppie Nuremberg Defense (“I had to pay my mortgage, etc.”).”

“SugarCRM jumps the Open Source shark claiming closed is open and it’s the rest of us who are mistaken”
      –Simon PhippsJones also points out that Michael “Monty” Widenius from MySQL (and from Microsoft’s CodePlex Foundation) had personal financial interests while lobbying against Oracle’s takeover of MySQL (he helped create SkySQL). “Another happy coincidence?”

That is what she asks anyway. “Consider the timing of the appeal of the Oracle-Sun deal by Monty before you answer,” she adds. This is an especially hard subject for us to address because Techrights uses a MySQL database. So does Groklaw for that matter. As for Phipps, his Web site uses MySQL and he refuses to talk about MySQL under Oracle (at least in FLOSS Weekly). We are grateful to Widenius for MySQL, but this project is no longer his. He sold it and made millions. █

Summary: With people like Simon Phipps in its house, the OSI regains credibility

• Rotten to the (Open) Core?

  Open core, Open core, more Open core… the debate goes on and on, with Monty the latest to weigh in.

  When you get down to it this is a fight over branding – which is why the issue is so important to the OSI folks (who are all about the brand). I don’t actually care that much how SugarCRM, Jahia, Alfresco et al make the software they sell to their customers. As a customer I’m asking a whole different set of questions to “is this product open source?” I want to know how good the service and support is, how good the product is, and above all, does it solve the problem I have at a price point I’m comfortable with. The license doesn’t enter into consideration.

  So if that’s the case (and I believe it is), why the fighting? Because of the Open Source brand, and all the warm-and-fuzzies that procures. “Open solutions” are the flavour of the decade, and as a small ISV building a global brand, being known as Open Source is a positive marketing attribute. The only problem is that the warm-and-fuzzies implied by Open source – freedom to change supplier or improve the software, freedom to try the software before purchasing, the existence of a diverse community of people with knowledge, skills and willingness to help a user in difficulty – don’s exist in the Open Core world. The problem is that for the most part, the Open Core which you can obtain under the OSI-approved license is not that useful.

  Yesterday on Twitter, I said “Open Core is annoying because the “open core” bit is pretty much useless. It doesn’t do exactly what it says on the tin.”

• A simple declaration about “Open Core”

  Recently, there has been debate in the press about “Open Core”. I don’t care to debate the minor points but make a simple declaration:

  * “Open Core” has NOTHING to do with “Open Source”. Nearly all proprietary software, at this point, has various degrees of open source-licensed source code in its core.
  * “Open Core” has none of the advantages of open source to the user and is merely a proprietary software company.
  * “Open Core” puts the software user at a disadvantage in the same way that all proprietary software puts the user at a disadvantage.

• ☞ Open Core Case Study

  While their marketing guy may claim “that overall, Sugar 6 is an open source product from an open source company”, it’s hard to see how they are anything other than a proprietary software company who share some code with a related open source project. Claiming to be “an open source company” seems an unacceptable use of the open source brand to me.

• Could You Adopt a Hacking Business Model?

  Once more there is a lot of heated discussion about what constitutes a “real” open source business model – that is, one that remains true to the spirit of open source, and doesn’t just use it as a trendy badge to attract customers. But such business models address only a tiny part of running a company – how it generates money. What about the many other aspects of a firm?

• Opening The Rackspace Cloud

  Imagine a world where code used by the biggest clouds is freely available to any developer, anywhere. A world where that code was a standard used to build private clouds as well as a variety of new service offers. In this world, workloads could be moved around these clouds easily – you could fire your cloud provider for bad service or lack of features, but not have to rewrite the software to do it. Imagine an open source cloud operating system that lifts IT to the next level of innovation, just as Linux drove the web to new heights.

• NASA drops Ubuntu’s Koala food for (real) open source

  Free whitepaper – 10 top tips for getting IT into your CMO’s good books

  NASA is dropping Eucalyptus from its Nebula infrastructure cloud not only because its engineers believe the open source platform can’t achieve the sort of scale they require, but also because it isn’t entirely open source.

  NASA chief technology officer Chris Kemp tells The Reg that as his engineers attempted to contribute additional Eucalyptus code to improve its ability to scale, they were unable to do so because some of the platform’s code is open and some isn’t. Their attempted contributions conflicted with code that was only available in a partially closed version of platform maintained by Eucalyptus Systems Inc., the commercial outfit run by the project’s founders.

• Yes, Just a Bit More On Ye Olde Open Core

  I was surprised to see that Larry Augustin had posted to his blog, since he does that pretty infrequently, so I assume all of the questioning about whether or not SugarCRM is open source is hitting close to home. Not as bad as a flawed cell phone antenna design, but I guess bad enough.

  While his post is very heartfelt, it is full of misdirection about the meaning of the term “open source”. He refers to the word “open” a lot, but “open” and “open source” are two different things. Heck, one of the most popular network management product suites of all time was called OpenView, but the “open” in the name had nothing to do with open source software.

• Two Problems with Free

  I’ve been staying out of the recent resurgence in the “open core” debate (check out the 451 Group for a summary). If these fauxpen source vendors would simply call their product “open core” versus “open source” there wouldn’t be anything to talk about, but they need to market themselves as “open source” as opposed to “just another commercial software company with a great API” to get any traction.

–Bill Gates, April 2008

Summary: The Open Source Initiative (OSI) needs to rethink its methods; Groklaw asks the OSI, “have you pruned out the Microsoft toadies/partners yet?”

Simon Phipps joined the OSI only some months ago and it is encouraging to hear him speak about bringing software Freedom ‘back’ to this organisation. When a company like Microsoft can join it while attacking “Open Source” and clearly describing it as a competitor, then something is obviously wrong. Over a Groklaw, Pamela Jones wrote about an OSI group: “I was part of that original group, and I quit in short order. My answer to his question would be this: have you pruned out the Microsoft toadies/partners yet? Got a plan at least? Until that happens, I won’t ask anyone to volunteer to help and I surely won’t either. I’d rather start from scratch.”

The OSI’s mistake of allowing Microsoft entryism is still costing it. By allowing proprietary software companies on board they diluted the impact of this organisation. We wrote about the subject in posts such as:

• Using OSI Endorsement and Linux Deals to Promote Lock-ins
• Not Everyone in the OSI Shows “Respect for Microsoft”
• The OSI Invasion Merely Follows the Linspire/Xandros/Novell/Turbolinux Invasion
• Novell Resentment: OSI, Others Begin to Wake Up
• OSI and Microsoft: Open Source ‘Divide and Conquer’? (Updated)
• Microsoft Brings IP FUD into OSI, Deters Adopters
• It all Comes Together Again: OSI, Port25, Novell, Patents…
• MSOSBC, the OSI and Microsoft’s Software Patents Demand
• Microsoft Lobbies Come Under Fire by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and Linux Journal
• Microsoft Has Already Hijacked (to Kill) Open Source
• Support Bruce Perens’ Fight Against ‘Invasion of the Borgs’
• Microsoft’s Aggressive Push to Assimilate FOSS to Microsoft

Yesterday, one reader sent us this item of news which shows how organisations that describe themselves as “Open” (Open Cloud Community Initiative in this case) are not truly interested in openness or even freedom. It’s just a marketing tool to them.

Why does an open cloud standards proponent get the boot from an open cloud organisation for wanting more open standards?

It sounds like a bad riddle or some strange joke on the old Orwellian concept of “some things being more equal than others”. But it’s no joke for Sam Johnston, secretary of the Open Cloud Community Inititiative (OCCI) Working Group – or at least he was until yesterday when he was abruptly sacked by the working group’s chairs

The background to all of this has been over which open licence to use. Sam Johnston has been pushing for the Creative Commons licence, and arguing against the Open Grid’s own licence, which he sees as more restrictive.

Maybe it’s time to return to “software Freedom”. It’s less susceptible to misuse.

“The FSF is needed now – more than ever,” argues Sam Varghese in his response to Brockmeier's latest insult.

When would one expect an organisation like the Free Software Foundation to be really relevant to the world of computing at large – when there is a limited threat to freedom in computing or when the threat is increasing exponentially?

One would think that in the latter case, the need for an organisation like the FSF would be that much greater. But some people think differently. People like Joe “Zonker” Brockmeier, for example.

Last week, Brockmeier put forward his views – the FSF should not just say no to the use of non-free software, things like SaaS (software as a service) and devices like the iPad, it should provide alternatives, was his take.

The function of the FSF must be properly understood by potential critics. The FSF has actually stuck to its goals for 25 years; it didn’t let itself be shaped by its environment, which in the case of the OSI meant being co-opted. █

Summary: Why the next version of your Web browser, media player or GNU/Linux distribution will probably contain VP8/WebM code; Apple and MPEG-LA continue to be the main barriers to VP8/WebM adoption

OUR last post ended with a word of warning about Microsoft patents that prevent access to one’s own videos, assuming that they are encoded using Microsoft’s own formats. The lesson to be learned from all this is that software patents which cover video compression are unacceptable and dangerous to society. This is why Ogg Theora/Vorbis and VP8/WebM are so important. The latter is currently being implemented/deployed in GNU/Linux, which already supports Ogg in all its varieties.

All in all, the Linux community has made a lot of progress implementing support for WebM in two short weeks. Given that few content providers are supporting the codec yet (Google-owned YouTube being the major exception), free-software users are ahead of the curve on this issue. And that’s definitely the right side of the curve to be on.

More developers get access to the code and Chrome gets it too [1, 2]. That was fast!

The Open Source Programs Manager from Google writes to inform everyone about necessary changes to the WebM licence. In his own words:

You’ll see on the WebM license page and in our source code repositories that we’ve made a small change to our open source license. There were a couple of issues that popped up after we released WebM at Google I/O a couple weeks ago, specifically around how the patent clause was written.

There used to be the issue of patents and GPL incompatibility. This is resolved. It’s all rather lovely, “but still no patent indemnification,” claims Florian Müller. Brett Smith from the FSF is more satisfied than that. “Google just updated the WebM license to make it GPL compatible,” he writes. Being a key GPL person, Smith also published the official statement from the FSF:

A couple of weeks ago Google announced their WebM project, which provided a free software implementation of their VP8 video codec and a license to exercise the patents the company held on the software. (This after we appealed to them to do just that a couple of months prior.) The license they chose was unambiguously free: a three-clause BSD license combined with a patent license based on one found in the Apache License 2.0. Unfortunately, the interaction between the copyright license and the patent license made the result GPL-incompatible. Based on the concerns of developers writing GPL-covered software, Google publicly stated that they would take some time to review the WebM license and try to address the community’s concerns. Today, they released a revised license, and it is GPL-compatible.

Simon Phipps (OSI) had this to say:

Google has also eliminated the incompatibility with the GPLv2 and GPLv3 licences that existed in the original language, which means that it will be possible for WebM to be readily incorporated in the GNU environment and in GNU/Linux.

More here:

By removing that part of the custom licence, what is left is a “three clause” BSD licence which is an OSI approved form of open source licence. Simon Phipps, the OSI board member who pointed out the original problem, was “pleased to say that project is now fully open source” in his blog where he congratulated Google on the “timely and welcome” correction of its “licencing and community-relations error”.

“Google open codec wins OSI love after patent shield rethink,” reports The Register.

Google has rejiggered the license on its open-source VP8 video codec after complaints that it wasn’t really open source.

Ars Technica emphasises compatibility with the BSD licence.

Google is adopting the BSD license for WebM in order to address a licensing conflict. When Google opened up the VP8 codec and announced the launch of the WebM project during the Google I/O conference last month, the actual license under which the code was distributed was not an official open source software license. It was a custom license that had not yet been approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), the organization responsible for maintaining the open source definition and validating licenses.

Google’s custom license posed some problems because it included clauses that made it incompatible with GNU’s General Public License (GPL), the most widely-used open source software license. It was a minor technicality, but one that would have broadly precluded adoption of WebM in many popular open source software applications. Fortunately, Google has rectified the conflict and has found an acceptable way to harmonize its licensing terms with the GPL.

[...]

To avoid the resulting incompatibility with the GPL, Google decided to use a standard BSD license instead for the software copyright and draft a separate set of terms for the WebM patent grant.

“Using patent language borrowed from both the Apache and GPLv3 patent clauses, in this new iteration of the patent clause we’ve decoupled patents from copyright, thus preserving the pure BSD nature of the copyright license,” wrote DiBona. “This means we are no longer creating a new open source copyright license, and the patent grant can exist on its own.”

It’s all good news, until Apple comes in.

In a new post on the subject of HTML5, Christopher Blizzard from Mozilla complains about Apple's latest lies (also see [1, 2]). Here is another take on the subject:

There’s open as the rest of the world thinks of it and there’s Apple open, which is what Steve Jobs wants it to mean. Jobs is very keen to dismiss Flash as a proprietary product, which it is, although iPhones and iPads also run proprietary operating systems.

[...]

Google is going down a different path entirely. Last month, it released VP8, a genuinely open compression format designed to handle multimedia on the web and not be beholden to proprietary software. Unlike Apple, the company does have a genuine commitment to openness. Having said that, there is a debate as to whether VP8 is quite as open as it appears to be – and whether it differs much from H.264.

But the difference is that Google is, I believe, genuinely looking top open standards, while Apple is a law unto itself.

Separately, writes Florian Müller to us, “I’ve commented once again on WebM. As you can see in case you read this, I don’t take the same position as FSF/OSI. Their concern is to push for a “free” codec no matter what. My concern is whether early adopters of WebM would be exposed to too much of a risk and whether Google should do more to protect them. All of that is independent from the fact that I’d prefer to see software patents abolished, which would spell the end for MPEG LA and anyone pursuing a similar “business model”.” Here is the blog post which raises fair points.

Google’s WebM initiative is somewhere in the middle between a true act of generosity and an IBM-style scheme:

* There’s no reason to assume that Google wants to hurt the FOSS cause in any way with WebM, especially not in any IBM-like way. I don’t put it past Google to have that intention elsewhere: they might do anything, including the use of patents, to destroy an open source search technology that could adversely affect their core business. However, in this particular context of video codecs, I don’t think they intend to cause harm. I do believe them that they want more competition in this case.

* What Google does do — and what I believe the FOSS community must approach cautiously — is to shift most of the risk to others while keeping most of the benefits to itself. Businesses like to do that, but FOSS developers and users shouldn’t lose sight of the risks just out of excitement over the idea of getting a seemingly “unencumbered” codec.

Google will retain control over WebM despite open-sourcing program code and publishing specifications

A common misconception about open source and “free” specifications is that this would make something such as the WebM project independent from a single vendor or a group of vendors. Some think this puts “the community” in charge.

There are lessons to be learned from Android. Google has not yet done anything which substantially reduces trust. Control is not the main issue here; the main issue is probably patents. There’s an urgent need to get past them. █