Re: [fsl-discuss] Re: [Patents] The politics of software over-protection -- moving forward..

[Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>]

On 26 Apr 2003, Roland Orre wrote:

> Of course this view has consequences: it implies that it would be
> perfectly all right for M$ to steal the [ref Ballmer] "viral" GPL
> programs and reimplement them in C# for instance. This feels wrong,
> but it's less bad than having the "idea" of a GPL program
> copyrighted or patented.


  I'm going to throw a few more ideas into this discussion to see if it 
brings the conversation to the next level.


  Doing code obfustication to hide the fact that a new work is a
derivative work may be fraudulent, and we likely all agree that it is
wrong, but what are we willing to do to police it?  This is the same
debate with musicians who want to stop Napster -- people are infringing
their rights, but what are we as a society willing to do to stop it?  Are
we willing to grant communications intermediaries (software companies,
recording industry, MPAA, Jack "the VCR is to the industry as the Boston
strangler is to women at night" Valenti) veto rights over all Information
and Communications Technologies(ICT)?


  The ability to re-implement (using the ideas, but not the exact code) is
a feature of copyright, not a bug.  It is in fact why there are Free
Software reference implementations of some standards.  It being Free
Software ensures that implementors of compatible products are able to dive
into the source (including recompiling) for interoperability testing.

  The license being GPL just ensures a reciprocal (honest, IMHO)  
relationship -- if you want to use my code, you must be willing to share
your derivative code as well.


  In the class of software that governs ICT, interoperability,
accountability and citizen control over the communications tools are much
more critical public policies than any claimed necessity for increased
incentive to create/innovate.  ICT is now fundamental to most of our
lives, and solve real problems that will get funded without software
patent or interface copyright (see the 1991 EU directive on the protection
on computer software, and legal protection for TPM which is being used as
a back-door to interface copyright).

  I truly believe it would be better to have ICT governance software not
get written at all, than to have this class of software under patent or
interface copyright.  While some consider this debate to be about
enforcement of creator/inventors rights, I see this more in the context of
communications rights such as article 19 of the United Nations Declaration
of Human Rights:

    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this 
    right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to 
    seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and 
    regardless of frontiers.

  ICT is an important communications media, and to require licenses from
private interests to interoperate/communicate (which is what software
patents and interface copyright give us) is a considerable harm to these 
rights.

  Your right to choose non-free/libre ICT should never be allowed to
infringe on my right to interoperate/communicate with you using free/libre
ICT!



  An important question for policy makers and economists (as this is a
public policy and economic issue, not a legal one) then becomes:  is all
software created equally?

  ICT governance software is quite different than game software which is
quite different than software used to control a manufacturing process.  
Is the class of software that Gregory is concerned about and suggests
needs more than copyright protection an entirely different class of
software than I believe must not have it (ICT)?

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
 Any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses, 
 VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen 
 and not a third party.   -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/