Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

August 28 2013

Les brevets logiciels n'ont plus droit de cité en Nouvelle Zélande

Les brevets logiciels n’ont plus droit de cité en Nouvelle Zélande

Après cinq années de débats et de rebondissements, le Parlement de Nouvelle-Zélande a adopté sa loi sur les brevets, qui exclue toute brevetabilité des logiciels.(Permalink)

#nz #foss #brevet #logiciel

July 14 2013

*Legal aspects of free and open source software COMPILATION OF BRIEFING NOTES - 2013-07-09*

Legal aspects of free and open source software COMPILATION OF BRIEFING NOTES - 2013-07-09

participants: Eben Moglen, Ian Sullivan, Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz, Calro Piana, Rishab Ghosh, Philippe Laurent

Carlo Piana - 2013-07-09: “A primer on Free Software licensing I wrote, in the briefing papers of the Workshop at EU Parliament. Go an read it. [...] I hope it’s useful, especially for those who are not really conversant with the matter and need some solid, yet simple, explanation. There is too much rubbish around.”



Legal aspects of free and open source software COMPILATION OF BRIEFING NOTES - 2013-07-09 [Pdf]


The public drafting and discussion of GPLv3 in 2006-07 was a landmark in nongovernmental transnational lawmaking. Free and open source software production communities are held together by copyright licensing, as are free cultural production communities like Wikipedia. Their efforts to improve those licenses—to increase their utility in multiple legal systems, to take account of technical and economic changes in the field, and to increase their efficiency of operation and enforcement—are among the most important examples of genuinely democratic, participatory law-making that we have experienced so far in the 21st century. In the interest of improving both the European Parliament’s access to the details of this particular process, and to assist it in self-scrutiny, with respect to its extraordinary consistency in missing its opportunities in this area, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) submits the records of this process, which it assisted its client, the Free Software Foundation, to design and execute.



#FOSS #LAW #free_software #open_source #licence #Europe #EC
#droit #logiciel_libre #CE
#Recht #Europa #EU #Lizenz

Sponsored post

July 22 2011

Top stories: July 18-22, 2011

Here's a look at the top stories published across O'Reilly sites this week.

Google+ is the social backbone
Google+ is the rapidly growing seed of a web-wide social backbone, and the catalyst for the ultimate uniting of the social graph.
Intellectual property gone mad
Patent trolling could undermine app ecosystems, but who can mount a legitimate challenge? Here's four potential solutions.
Software engineering is a team sport: How programmers can deal with colleagues and non-programmers
Ben Collins-Sussman, tech lead and manager at Google, and Brian Fitzpatrick, engineering manager at Google, explain the "art of mass organizational manipulation."
FOSS isn't always the answer
James Turner says the notion that proprietary software is somehow dirty or a corruption of principles ignores the realities of competition, economics, and context.

Emerging languages show off programming's experimental side
Alex Payne, organizer of OSCON's Emerging Languages track, discusses language experimentation and whether these efforts are evolutionary or revolutionary.

Rugby photo: Scrum by MontyPython, on Flickr; Open sign photo: open by tinou bao, on Flickr

OSCON Java 2011, being held July 25-27 in Portland, Ore., is focused on open source technologies that make up the Java ecosystem. Save 20% on registration with the code OS11RAD

July 21 2011

FOSS isn't always the answer

There's been some back and forth between various members of the technical press about whether the open source movement has lost its idealism, and the relative virtues of shunning or accepting proprietary software into your life. The last thing to cross my screen was an essay by Bruce Byfield that includes this gem:

In my mind, to buy and use proprietary products, except in the utmost necessity is something to be ashamed about. And that's how I've felt the few times I've bought proprietary myself. It seems an undermining of FOSS' efforts to provide an alternative.

Over the years, I've become less patient with the stridency of the FOSS movement, or at least some of the more pedantic wings of it. It is certainly not my place to tell anyone that they should buy or not buy any kind of software. However, the repeated assertions by members of the FOSS movement that proprietary software is somehow dirty or a corruption of principles has begun to stick in my craw.

There are plenty of places where FOSS makes all the sense in the world, and those are the places that FOSS has succeeded. No one uses a closed source compiler anymore, Eclipse is one of the leading IDEs for many languages, and Linux is a dominant player in embedded operating systems. All these cases succeeded because, largely, the software is secondary to the main business of the companies using it (the major exception being Linux vendors who contribute to the kernel, but they have a fairly unique business model.)

Where FOSS breaks down pretty quickly is when the software is not a widely desired tool used by the developer community. Much as you can quickly get to the Wikipedia philosophy page by repeated clicking on the first link of articles, you can quickly get to the requirement for a utopian society once you start following the line of assumptions needed to make consumer-level FOSS work.

The typical line of thought runs like this: Let's say we're talking about some truly boring, intricate, detail-laden piece of software, such as something to transmit dental billing records to insurers (this type of stuff is going to be required under the new health care laws.) Clearly, people don't write these things for kicks, and your typical open-source developer is unlikely to be either a dentist, or a dental billing specialist.

OSCON 2011 — Join today's open source innovators, builders, and pioneers July 25-29 as they gather at the Oregon Convention Center in Portland, Ore.

Save 20% on registration with the code OS11RAD

So, if all software should be free and open source, who is going to write this code? One argument is that the dentist, or a group of dentists, should underwrite the production of the code. But dentistry, like most things in western society, tends to be a for-profit competitive enterprise. If everyone gets the benefit of the software (since it's FOSS), but a smaller group pays for it, the rest of the dentists get a competitive advantage. So there is no incentive for a subset of the group to fund the effort.

Another variant is to propose that the software will be developed and given away, and the developers will make their living by charging for support. Leaving alone the cynical idea that this would be a powerful incentive to write hard-to-use software, it also suffers from a couple of major problems. To begin with, software this complex might take a team of 10 people one or more years to produce. Unless they are independently wealthy, or already have a pipeline of supported projects, there's no way they will be able to pay for food (and college!) while they create the initial product.

And once they do, the source is free and available to everyone, including people who live in areas of the world with much lower costs (and standards) of living. What is going to stop someone in the developing world from stepping in and undercutting support prices? It strikes me as an almost automatic race to the bottom.

And this assumes that software development is the only cost. Let's think about a game such as "Portal 2" or one of the "Call of Duty" titles. They have huge up-front costs for actors, motion capture, and so on. And they have very little in the way of potential revenue from support, as well. So do the FOSS proponents believe that modern computer games are all evil, and we should all go back to "NetHack" and "Zork"?

Let me be clear here: I am in no way trying to undermine anyone who wants to develop or use FOSS. But I have spent most of my adult life writing proprietary software — most of it so specialized and complicated that no open source project would ever want to take it on — and I find the implication that the work I do is in some way cheap or degrading to be a direct insult. When it has made sense, I have contributed work to open source projects, sometimes to a significant degree. But when it made sense, and when not, should remain my choice.

In many ways, the web is a perfect example of the marketplace of ideas. No one knows (or in most cases, cares) whether the technology under the covers is FOSS or proprietary. Individuals make the same measured decisions when selecting software for personal or business use. If there is a FOSS package that meets all the requirements, it tends to be selected. If it suffers in comparison to proprietary counterparts, it it may still be selected if the need to modify or extend the package is important, or if the price differential is just too hard to justify. But in many cases, proprietary software fills niches that FOSS software does not. If individual activists want to "wear a hair shirt" and go without functionality in the name of FOSS, that's their decision. But I like linen, thank you.

If there are people out there who are willing to engage in a reasoned, non-strident discussion of this issue, I'd love to talk it out. But they need to accept the ground rules that most of us live in a capitalist society, we have the right to raise and provide for a family, and that until we all wake up in a FOSS developer's paradise, we have to live and work inside of that context. Drop me a note or post a comment. I'd love to hear how a proprietary-free software world could work.


Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.
No Soup for you

Don't be the product, buy the product!

YES, I want to SOUP ●UP for ...