main discussion list for development topics

Francis Whittle | 1 Jan 2003 03:05

Re: Answers to your questions about W3C patent policy


> I don't see how that can possibly coexist with this sentence of the
> GPL, section 7:
> 
> : if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of
> : the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly
> : through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this
> : License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the
> Program.
> 
> The recipient of the program (which combines a GPL'd framework
> with a patent-encumbered MIT library) will be able to use the program
> to implement the standard, but not for any other purpose.  Certainly,
> if he modifies it to use the patented material for some other purpose,
> he won't be able to redistribute *that*... and since he won't be able
> to do so, you can't distribute the GPL'd code for which you don't have
> copyright.

This rather seems to be the major flaw in the policy.  It looks to me
like a "you can implement the [patented] standard provided you you use
the standard in any implementation" arrangement.  Which really makes a
mockery of the whole thing.

=head1 Accidental [un]-ispirational Speech

Unfortunately this seems to be the place where free software ideals
fall down; standards and patents.  A lot of standards out there are
patented; and the creates an environment the opensource community just
doesn't stand a chance in, in terms of interoperability with
proprietary products.  The best we can do is point at the open

(Continue reading)

headers

Toni Mueller | 20 Jan 2003 12:21

Re: Answers to your questions about W3C patent policy

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +1100, Francis Whittle wrote:
> of your brain.  Hopefully, we can avoid some problems by making our
> standards more extensible and more standard... and integrating
> features of new [patent pending] "standards" being designed and
> developed into existing open standards, which saves the hassle of
> trying to develop an entire new standard that does a few things more
> than an existing standard.

I don't think that this will work. In the US, to the best of my
knowledge, you get patent protection from the point where you filed
your patent. So if you hear a rumour that there will be an invention
XYZ you might want to see implemented in Open Source, nobody will
stop you from creating a piece of code to do it. But if at some later
time the patent gets accepted, and it was filed before you published
your code, then you have lost.

> debian] to name but a few), we already have the community, we already
> have the expertise, and we have even the appropriate licensing, and
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sorry, I don't always think so. There's a consistent impression to me
that the "basic" things were invented free, but the more advanced
things are invented in "for-fee" circles. Just consider web services.
Standardization in that area seems to be driven by the needs of
large corporations to interoperate. As of today (while not being
current with their developments) I don't see that the casual end
user _needs_ to use such stuff. So most of us are imho just very

(Continue reading)

headers

H. S. Teoh | 1 Jan 2003 05:32

Developing free standards (Was: Re: Answers to your questions about W3C patent policy)

On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +1100, Francis Whittle wrote:
[snip]
> Unfortunately this seems to be the place where free software ideals
> fall down; standards and patents.  A lot of standards out there are
> patented; and the creates an environment the opensource community just
> doesn't stand a chance in, in terms of interoperability with
> proprietary products.

This brings to mind the infamous Halloween Documents. Decommoditizing
protocols. *shudder*

> The best we can do is point at the open standards and say "these are
> more standard, better, standards that can be implemented more standardly
> than patented standards because everyone has access to them not just
> big corporations" and hope that the world's information technology user,
> and I hate to use the term, market (it's not a community yet by a long
> shot)  pays attention.

But pointing at open standards won't do very much if practically nobody is
*using* them. The most accepted standards tend to be de facto standards
(at least in some form). It's very difficult for an open standard to be
accepted if other competing proprietary standards are already out there,
together with implementations used by the majority of users. 

[snip]
> Hopefully, we can avoid some problems by making our standards more
> extensible and more standard... and integrating features of new [patent
> pending] "standards" being designed and developed into existing open
> standards, which saves the hassle of trying to develop an entire new
> standard that does a few things more than an existing standard.

(Continue reading)

headers

Francis Whittle | 1 Jan 2003 05:42

Re: Developing free standards (Was: Re: Answers to your questions about W3C patent policy)

On 2003.01.01 15:32 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +1100, Francis Whittle wrote:
> [snip]
> > Unfortunately this seems to be the place where free software ideals
> > fall down; standards and patents.  A lot of standards out there are
> > patented; and the creates an environment the opensource community
> just
> > doesn't stand a chance in, in terms of interoperability with
> > proprietary products.
> 
> This brings to mind the infamous Halloween Documents. Decommoditizing
> protocols. *shudder*
> 
> :
> :
> 
> Of course, I hope all this will turn out to be *not* the case. But it
> is
> wiser to plan for the worst than to hope we can ignore it out of
> existence.
> 

Sorry, were you meaning to spit back out exactly what I meant but using 
slightly different language (mostly ordering), or did that happen by 
accident?

Oh well...  You did outline a few more issues, though.

Francis.

(Continue reading)