|
|
User Controls
|
New User
|
Login
|
Edit/View My Profile
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac
|
Articles
|
Forums
|
Links
|
News
|
News Search
|
Reviews
|
|
|
|
News Centers
|
Windows/Microsoft
|
DVD
|
ActiveHardware
|
Xbox
|
MaINTosh
|
News Search
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats
|
The Lobby
|
Special Events Room
|
Developer's Lounge
|
XBox Chat
|
|
|
|
FAQ's
|
Windows 98/98 SE
|
Windows 2000
|
Windows Me
|
Windows "Whistler" XP
|
Windows CE
|
Internet Explorer 6
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Xbox
|
DirectX
|
DVD's
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips
|
Registry Tips
|
Windows 95/98
|
Windows 2000
|
Internet Explorer 4
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Windows NT Tips
|
Program Tips
|
Easter Eggs
|
Hardware
|
DVD
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews
|
Applications
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002
|
|
Hardware
|
Intel Personal Audio Player
3000
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse
Explorer
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info
|
About This Site
|
Affiliates
|
ANet Forums
|
Contact Us
|
Default Home Page
|
Link To Us
|
Links
|
Member Pages
|
Site Search
|
Awards
|
|
|
|
Credits
©1997/2004, Active Network. All
Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by
Designer Dream. Content
written by the Active Network team. Please click
here for full terms of
use and restrictions or read our
Privacy Statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time:
05:06 EST/10:06 GMT | News Source:
Yahoo News |
Posted By: Alex Harris |
SCO Group Inc's attempt to lock-down copyright on Linux is proving a dangerous distraction, obscuring real threats and challenges to open source.
That's according to open source evangelist Bruce Perens, who believes open source software and developers face a broader threat from national and corporate patent police.
Speaking at last week's LinuxWorld conference, Perens listed dangers including a proposed European-wide software copyright law and a failure by some of Linux's biggest supporting companies to guarantee Linux is safe from prosecution.
"SCO is nothing beside the threat that the Open Source developers face from software patents, a fight that we are losing badly," Perens warned.
He singled-out IBM, a Linux stalwart and the primary subject of SCO's action, for pursuing a "pro-software patent agenda". The company is renowned for maintaining a massive patent library.
"None of our company partners other than Red Hat have even given us any assurance that we are safe from their own patents... I'd sleep a lot better if I could see something on paper that spells out just what sort of armistice we have."
Another threat to open source comes from legislators, enshrining copyright protection into law - as European politicians are planning. Perens said such laws are problematic because royalty-bearing standards are inserted into certain industry standards.
He said laws would pave the path for prosecutions, noting open source developers would be unable to fund a defense against corporate action. He claimed a typical US patent dispute costs $2m.
|
|
#1 By
9589 (68.17.52.2)
at
8/12/2003 9:25:15 AM
|
This guy's title is misquoted. It should read simply communist.
Someone remind Perens that the basis of our capitalist society is intellectual property rights.
The other thing that Perens has got to get over is that open sore has company "partners". IBM is into open sore for one reason - it can make a buck off the dufus programmers that give their talent away.
Meanwhile, IBM, the only absolute monopoly in both hardware and software in the mainframe business makes tens of billions a year! And that crap in the open sore world about giving back - hogwash. IBM develop's open sore for the mainframe and who do they give back to exactly? Remember, they have no competition. Kind of a sweet deal for IBM if you ask me. Yet, we here nothing about this "violation" of the - what is it called - the GPL. Perens, you're being played. Change that title to dufus.
|
#2 By
16451 (63.227.226.13)
at
8/12/2003 10:01:17 AM
|
>>> IBM, the only absolute monopoly in both hardware and software in the mainframe business
Totally clueless
|
#3 By
135 (209.180.28.6)
at
8/12/2003 10:13:27 AM
|
Actually it should say "Self-Proclaimed Open Source Evangelist"
Bruce Perens doesn't speak for anybody else in the Open Source community but himself.
|
#4 By
7754 (216.160.8.41)
at
8/12/2003 12:31:21 PM
|
Many companies (IBM, etc.) are quite happy to let developers work for free for them. Perens shouldn't be surprised.
|
#5 By
3339 (66.219.95.6)
at
8/12/2003 7:05:30 PM
|
"the basis of our capitalist society is intellectual property rights."
Really? I didn't know capitalism began in 1790.
http://techweb.ceat.okstate.edu/ias/firstpatent.htm
People weren't engaged in free trade and property ownership prior to this?
What makes some people think that the US's distorted notion of patents and copyrights is fundamental to capitalism I'll never understand.
If anything, isn't the basis of much of our early capitalist successes predicated on the theft of IP?
The first textile mill in the US was built based on plans memorized by John Slater because the English had protected their milling secrets.
http://www.a-clue.com/archive/03/cl030721.htm
The lightbulb had been patented but altering the design to make it practical caused an explosion after 50 years of lightbulbs.
http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/lightbulbs/
The credit, wealth, fame, and patent for inventing the telephone going to Bell even though Elisha Gray held a telephone patent prior to Bell.
http://repo-nt.tcc.virginia.edu/classes/tcc315/Resources/ALM/Telephone/Exhibits/gray.html
There's a million more... I would say Slater's building the first successful textile mill in the colonies based on stolen plans he memorized to be the first and biggest (but not the last) cases of industrial espionage and IP theft in American, possibly world history... in regards the development of capitalist societies. Not to mention subsequent advances/thefts of major inventions pivotal to our society... a la the telephone and a large percentage of Edison's catalog of "inventions."
|
#6 By
20 (67.9.179.51)
at
8/12/2003 9:30:43 PM
|
Actually, I just saw a history channel special on this. Bell and Gray were competing indepdently on about the same project and Gray was going to Washington to file his patent and Bell heard about it and packed up his design and went to Washington and filed his patent about 6 hours before Gray did and the rest is history.
I think Gray had several previous similar patents, but the actual Telephone as we know it today went to Bell by a hair.
|
#7 By
9589 (68.17.52.2)
at
8/12/2003 11:25:07 PM
|
#5 your own first link's first sentence sums it up (http://techweb.ceat.okstate.edu/ias/firstpatent.htm): In two hundred years of existence, the U.S. Patent Office has issued nearly five million patents, which together document the greatest industrial development in human experience .
Next time, try not to defeat your own argument! LOL
|
#8 By
1845 (12.209.152.69)
at
8/13/2003 1:05:11 AM
|
jd,
Perhaps you need a class or two in critical thinking. Nothing implicit in the documentation of patents proves that the patent system was the catalyst for industrial development.
|
#9 By
3339 (66.219.95.6)
at
8/13/2003 3:17:38 AM
|
daz, a phone, yes, that goes to Bell. But the underlying patents which govern the science, techniques, and apparatuses (I know) used to create the phone belonged to Gray... And yet he never made a cent. And complte independence is a weak argument, I believe some of Elisha's patents are rather early... And thus begins the wonderful history of the great and mighty Intellectual Property, captial I, capital P.
hawk, you are freakin dumbass. I apologize: what I really wanted to say was, "people who interpret the first sentence of a written piece as the... and I mean THE... the one and only meaning of the piece, and hence choose to read no further, are freakin dumbasses." ... but I presume you've stopped reading by now.
|
#10 By
3339 (66.219.95.6)
at
8/13/2003 4:03:31 AM
|
And as Bob points out: a document of the history of industrial development doesn't prove that what is being documented is the very reason for there being a history in the first place.
Jeezus. (For ole times' sake, Bob.)
Didn't all of my examples include historical evidence pf patents existing? Hmm.
But I do believe my point might have been that capitalism would have happened anyway, and in fact, history suggests that capitalism runs roughshod over the almighty sanctity of Intellectual Property... which I believe would be in direct opposition to the notion that capitalism upholds it, IP, as the supreme good ... the originary and driving force of capitalism. But who the fsck am I to suggest what I might have been suggesting in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|