[deostroll]

I believe this is currently a topic of intense debate. I've written something about this in my blogs again:
http://deostroll-fre...re.blogspot.com

I need a firmer ground to stand on. Hence I've put forward the issue in this forum.

As far as free software philosophy is concerned software patents are not good. It restricts the development of free software.

But on the lines of patentability alone, one can argue that he/she needs the right to work on his/her own idea, because it belongs to that person...However, if this be the case, then, what if the reverse scenario existed? What if ideas were free? Wouldn't that have promoted developing the idea to further benefit the society/community?

Earlier patenting software wasn't allowed. But as inventions became complex software slowly played a vital part in them. Patenting this invetion as such also restricts the idea that has gone into the development of software. The idea that must have gone into it may have been something very trivial and something important for others to develop on...

Software patents increasingly come to exist in today's business world. So is it really that companies show their power with the more number of patents they own? It has become almost like a defence setup for most of them!

Okay. I suppose the last bastion of defence for software patentability is "stealing an idea. Its generally not good." But what if people were educated of the fact that ideas will be stolen as long as humanity exists? Couldn't we work for a better future if ideas were free and implementable by everyone however they want it!

Ok. regarding development in the idea...big companies invest in ideas that are seemingly able to convince them of the fact that it would fetch them profit. If ideas were free I guess there would be an atmosphere that discourages investment. But surely isn't there a solution to this? (I need an answer to this plz).

I'm not against the idea of patenting as such. There are situations where I think patenting is a must. For e.g. research on a new nuclear reactor. If the idea was free and if someone other than the original inventor was given the chance to develop on the idea, there is always a risk in the whole setup exploding into a chain reaction. So here I guess its safe in the hands of the original inventor. (The invention is HIS/HERS ).

I've outlined all my areas of argument and doubt. In the end

I hope I get a verdict.

[snoj]

You're okay until you start comparing software with physical things like the CD or harddrive (hardware) that software resides in/on. Software, like books, is about ideas. Now ideas that concern the physical world, like CD's, paper manufacture, how you barber's clippers work, wtc. can be patanted. Ideas that convey thoughts are different. Think of it this way, if software can be patanted, what's to stop someone from patanting the main plot devices of a comedy?

Software and litature have what's called, "Copyright". If I understand US law corrently, this means that while they can make a story about saving the world or manipulate images, they can't say someone else can't use those overall ideas.

The same holds true for patants. Everyone can use steel, iron, cloth, or whatever, to make anything. But no one can prevent another idea on how to impliment those materials in making new things or better things.

[Amadeus]

hotsnoj is correct...it is not the functionality of software that is protected (for the most part), it is the specific implementation - a good example is a word processing application. There are several main ones, but each may (and most are) closed source and protected.

You seem to be one of the Stallman advocates - very admirable, but even some of his ideas around free software are open to debate ans some are not well developed (although for the most part, he does put forth relatively convincing arguments, and I feel he should be supported to a good degree).

The question to which you want an answer has been debated since time out of mind - and I'm afraid will not be decided today, as it comes down to the preferences of individuals and/or corporations, not a series of concrete 'right' answers. There can even be conflicting opinions within one individual or corporation. For example:

I have worked on several open source software projects over the years, software that is provided free to anyone who wishes to use it, or even modify it. There are applications I've built and released free of charge to academic institutions. I have done this becasue I very much believe that the sharing of ideas and resources can make a better world - if everyone has access to the things they need, they would be free to provide a positive contribution as well.

At the same time, I have written a great deal of proprietary software, both as a developer for corporations, and as an individual software architect. I have done so becasue while I do want society to be a better place, I also very much want to provide for myself and my family. I am using the skill set I have developed to do so.

It's a tough argument to implement - it's been tried in several times throughout history in many places in the world. the problem is that ideas such as this can be a success if implemented globally, but can run into severe problems when implemented locally, becasue the rest of the world is not working on the same agenda.

Everyone has their own opinion on this.

[deostroll]

Amadeus, on 19 Aug, 2006 - 08:05 AM, said:

...it is not the functionality of software that is protected (for the most part), it is the specific implementation

Yes. I agree with this idea. Its not the functionality that is being is being protected, but it is the invention/implementation. In fact, this was what I meant when I said that today's modern inventions have become so complex that software has/can become an essential component of the same.

My line of argument is this: if you've patented that invention then you can, well, sue anybody who uses the idea that has actually gone into the development of the software, right? That idea may even be trivial. See this wikipedia link to see what I mean - click here.

I object to this nature of patents. I suppose it is a kind of flaw in the whole system...However, I don't really know.

[snoj]

The problem I see with software patents similar to what Amazon did with their logo or their one click shopping. The logo is already protected by trademark laws and the one click is a concept that is similar to story plots.

[deostroll]

I agree that the effect of removing the whole idea of patenting would be chaos. But what would the picture be like?

I am sure most people must have heard of the Gnu Public License; does any one know how this license really protects ones ideas?

I suppose it goes something like this: You include comments in your code revealing your identity. Anyone who uses this code will have to reference it to the original author. This is kind of how ideas are protected. If this is violated then you can go ahead and write to the gnu about it.

I mean isn't this enough for protecting ideas as such? Then why patent?

[Amadeus]

Quite obviously, people patent not to protect, but to protect and profit. The whole idea behind patenting is not solely to claim the product/idea as yours, but to prevent others from marketing it as theirs.

As for the GNU public license, I am intimately familiar with it...it is a fantastic idea, but it's wording and use have led to many differences in interpretation.

A public license will work wonderfully as long as everyone agrees to abide by it - problem is, as noted in my previous post, not everyone does.

[deostroll]

Amadeus, on 26 Aug, 2006 - 08:04 AM, said:

As for the GNU public license, I am intimately familiar with it...it is a fantastic idea, but it's wording and use have led to many differences in interpretation.

Could u share your experience...I mean how people seemed to have misintrepreted it. Just want to know about it. (Believe we can somehow work to a better understanding).

[Amadeus]

I don't believe we have a misunderstanding...I am in relative agreement with your position. My only point in the last post is to note that the emphasis of the GNU public license is on the 'public' portion as opposed to the 'protection' portion. Is it a good idea? Yes, in my opinion. Is it able to fully protect ideas to the standards wished by the originators of those ideas? Probably not, and this is due to possible interpretations of the license by various legal systems - you have to remember that different nations have different views on licensing and copyright interpretation.

Having said that, those who are interested in absolute protection do not generally release under the GNU license.

There are two different camps when it comes to 'free' software...the Stallman disciples who advocate that software should all be released for free, and the Torvalds disciples who will release their software for free in an open source concept, but have no objections to those who wish to charge. I believe in the latter, as I feel it promotes freedom in a better sense than Stallman. With regards to the protection of ideas/implementations of software concepts, I feel that people should be able to do as they choose, not be forced to release an implementation for free.

That's not to say that Stallman does not have some good points - he does.

As for my own experiences with the GNU public license, I've had no instances of misinterpretation. I only mentioned that I am intimately familiar with it, and understand it. I've released software under that license when I want to share. If I have wanted to fully protect an implementation, I've released it as proprietary software.

[deostroll]

I avidly recall what Stallman meant by "free". It is not to be confused with zero price. What he meant was that the source code must be free or accessible to the user or developer, and that it should be free to distribute to anyone once it goes "out of your hands".

But I don't understand how you have come to conclude that there are two different camps of thought...

I think open source has a different meaning when contrasted with free software. Although the source may be out there may be restrictions to its distribution, or use of part of its source for some other purpose. The source code is "viewable" is my idea about open source.

But then again I do believe what u've told might be true. But in my knowledge Linus did admit that licensing the Linux kernel as per GPL was the best thing he ever did...If he had objections, he probably would have somehow told people about it. [I grabbed this little bit from wikipedia article on linux.]

[Amadeus]

You may want to research the Stallmman vs Torvalds subject...

I understand that Stallman's free is not to be confused with zero price. If you carefully read my post, you'll find the portion that I, and many people object to, is the following:

Quote

What he meant was that the source code must be free or accessible to the user or developer

I have bolded the word that gives me problems...the must. Again, I greatly support many of Stallman's views, just not all.

Quote

But I don't understand how you have come to conclude that there are two different camps of thought...

I, and a great deal of other people, have come to that conclusion vecasue it is well documented. It is generally known as the free vs. open debate, and there are many well written articles on the subject.

http://www.forbes.co...1stallman2.html

A more humorous look:

http://uncyclopedia...._Linus_Torvalds

As you have noted, there is a difference between open and free, and difference with which I am acquainted.

Quote

If he had objections, he probably would have somehow told people about it.

He has...on numerous occasions, Torvalds has spoken out against the GPLv3, most notably with regards to it's DRM policies.

http://www.businessw...0818_977941.htm

[deostroll]

Okay, as far as maintaining the standards of a particular software is concerned (i.e. as conceived by the original developers) I have to say that the GPL has a little glitch there. Its not the GPL, but the whole idea philosophy of free software rather.

I view this as people misintrepreting what freedom actually means in free software. I took the liberty of researching about free software vs open source debate and found out that open source tells nothing about modifying and re-distributing. I think this quality somehow is responsible for maintaining standards that the original developers have thought about.

But again, according to free software, I guess that is a lapse of freedom. I mean if you intimately understand that "freedom" you would say that "Hey I can do something as per standards. This is good, but the standards are itself too constrictive. This is bad. Isn't it?"

I realise that people may object to this idea of freedom. Because it somehow precipitates into a nebulous picture of chaos as far as the thing that they have developed is concerned - it might result in what the original developer might not have anticipated and thereby get annoyed or depressed.

The freedom to modify and redistribute complicates the matter. It may result in something different. While you and I may instantly realise this, we must also be aware that all of this is a part of us playing to be human beings on earth. In free software this is the handicap, but we must be prepared to accept.

But the worse that can happen is even greater in tragedy - someone stealing your code and making it proprietary...

I think allowing people to modify the source code and redistributing the software allows for greater freedom. It somehow saves time! Think about it.