Free Software Foundation Certifies 3D Printer -- And Why That Matters

Last week Mike wrote about a new patent from Intellectual Ventures that seeks to assert ownership of the idea of DRM for 3D printing. The article in Technology Review that Techdirt linked to explains how things would work: 

On Techdirt.

Darkness Visible: Making Patent Absurdity Patent

Regular readers of this blog may have noticed that I write a lot about software patents. The reason is simple: they represent probably the greatest single threat to free software, far beyond that of any individual company. If software patents are invoked more widely, or – even worse – unequivocally accepted in Europe, then free software will be in serious trouble (so will traditional software, but at least the companies involved will be able to pay for lawyers, unlike most free software projects.) This makes fighting software patents one of the key tasks for the free software community.

On Open Enterprise blog.

Cisco Becomes Infected by the GNU GPL

When it was first announced that the FSF had filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Cisco, some were predicting that this was going to be the definitive test of the power and legality of the GNU GPL. I was more sceptical...

On Open Enterprise blog.

EndSoftwarePatents.org Phase II

There's no doubt that more and more scrutiny is being applied to patents around the world, with particularly hopeful moves in the US in the wake of the Bilski judgment. So it's a wise move on the FSF's part to turn up the pressure with their EndSoftwarePatents.org campaign:

The Free Software Foundation today announced funding for the End Software Patents project to document the case for ending software patents worldwide. This catalog of studies, economic arguments, and legal analyses will build on the recent success of the "in re Bilski" court ruling, in which End Software Patents (ESP) helped play a key role in narrowing the scope for patenting software ideas in the USA.

For this new phase of End Software Patents work, the FSF has engaged veteran anti-software-patent lobbyist Ciaran O'Riordan, taking over from Ben Klemens as director of ESP. O'Riordan brings years of experience campaigning against software patents in the EU. This knowledge, combined with what was learned during the Bilski work, will form the starting point for a global information resource and campaign. The goal is to make it easy for activists around the world to benefit from existing knowledge, often scattered and sometimes disappearing with time.

That's absolutely right: one of the great things about work trying to claw back some of the ground lost to intellectual monopolies is that it all feeds into itself. The more info you have, the easier it is to build the case with further research and campaigns.

As O'Riordan explains:

"Each campaign raises new evidence and arguments for the case against software patents. The work on the Bilski case uncovered new economic studies and developed legal proposals for how to pin down the slippery goal of excluding software ideas from patentability. To make the most of that work, Phase II of ESP will work on documenting and organizing that information and making it easily reusable. We'll add to that what was learned during the years-long campaign against the EU software patents directive, and then we'll research and document what's happening in South Africa, India, New Zealand, Brazil, and so forth."

Here's to Phase III: victory.

Help Fight This Patent-Encumbered IETF Standard

I've written numerous times about the importance of writing to governments about their hare-brained schemes, but this one is rather different. In this case, it's the normally sane Internet Engineering Task Force that wants to do something really daft. The FSF explains....

On Open Enterprise blog.

Should We Trash Windows Vista – or BadVista?

The world and their dog seems to be talking about Windows 7 at the moment. Ironically, in part that's because it's proving almost impossible to download the beta that has just been released: you can't help feeling that Microsoft has let this happen on purpose just to create a little demand. But while everyone is looking forward, I want to look back, at Windows Vista – more specifically, to the FSF's BadVista campaign.

On Linux Journal.

Why eBay Should Open-Source Skype

eBay is not going through the happiest of times. Not only has it found it necessary to make 1000 people – 10% of its workforce – redundant, it has had to own up to a serious breach of trust with its Internet telephony program, Skype....

On Linux Journal.

High Priority Free Software Projects

One of the criticisms of free software is that certain classes of applications are missing. Interestingly, the FSF agrees, up to a point, and has put together what it calls its "high-priority projects list":

The FSF high-priority projects list serves to foster the development of projects that are important for increasing the adoption and use of free software and free software operating systems. The projects on our list are neither run, controlled, nor maintained by the FSF, but are supported entirely by the individuals in the free software community. Our list helps guide volunteers and supporters to projects where their skills can be utilized, whether they be in coding, graphic design, writing, or activism. We hope that you can find a project here where your skill, energy, and time can be put to good use.

Some of the most important projects on our list are replacement projects. These projects are important because they address areas where users are continually being seduced into using non-free software by the lack of an adequate free replacement.

If you're interested - and maybe want to contribute - here's the list:

1. Gnash — the free software Flash player
2. Coreboot — the campaign for a free BIOS
3. Free software replacement for Skype
4. Membership and donor transaction and contact system
5. Free software video editing software
6. Free Google Earth Replacement
7. gNewSense — The all free software GNU/Linux operating system
8. GNU Octave — free software Matlab replacement
9. Replacement for OpenDWG libraries
10. Reversible Debugging in GDB
11. Free software drivers for network routers

Any others that you'd add? (Via linux.com.)

Authoriterrorism...

...is:

the practice of (i) mislabeling as property a limited monopoly granted by society as a means to get, after an originally short period of deprivation, more creative works available for all to enjoy and build upon; (ii) promoting the extension of the monopoly and other authoritarian laws that grant authoriterrorists technical and legal means to steal from society the fulfillment of the goal of copyrights; (iii) using these technical and legal measures and scare tactics to stop people from using works in ways that fall outside the scope or the period of the monopoly; (iv) brainwashing people so they believe they don't and shouldn't have the right to use works in these ways, that it would somehow harm authors (as if authoriterrorists didn't), and that it is the moral equivalent of invading ships, stealing the cargo and enslaving or murdering the tripulation.

Not quite sure what a tripulation is, but anyway....

Approving the AGPL: Funambol to the Rescue

On Open Enterprise blog.

What Richard Stallman Wants for Christmas

Bruce Byfield has an interesting write-up of the FSF's High Priority Free Software Projects.

Projects make this list "because there is no adequate free placement," the list's home page explains, which means that "users are continually being seduced into using non-free software."

He concludes with the just observation:

Personally, I find the current list both encouraging and depressing. On the one hand, it is encouraging in that relatively few items affect daily computing for the average user. Moreover, the fact that free software is in reasonable enough shape that it can start thinking beyond immediate needs and worry about such things as the BIOS is a sign of progress.

On the other hand, it is discouraging because progress sometimes seems slow. Video drivers have been a problem for years, and the improvements, while real, are also painfully slow. Similarly, Gnash has not yet developed to the stage where it can rival Adobe's Flash reader, despite several years of work.

Still, over time, the list reflects progress. For instance, since Sun announced last year that it was releasing the Java code, you will no longer find support for free Java implementations listed. By comparing the current list with previous ones, you can get a sense of the gradual evolution of free software, seeing where it's been and where it is heading. For a GNU/Linux watcher, it remains an invaluable resource.

Badgeware Comes in from the Cold

Has badgeware - software whose licences requires attribution to be displayed in all copies - gone legit? Roberto Galoppini seems to think so:

Badgeware is not only OSI approved, but it is also endorsed by the Free Software Foundation now, with its flagship license. The debate is over.

GNU Affero GPL: Second Draft

One of the vexed questions in the free software world is what should be done about software as a service, when the service is based on free software:

All versions of the GPL allow people to use modified version of the software privately without being obliged to make their modified source code available to anyone. When people put software on a public server, the question is less clear: is that private use or public use? This was called the "software as a service" issue, or "SaaS".

The FSF's answer is a special licence, known as the GNU Affero GPL, which is now in its second draft.

Everything You Wanted to Know About the GPLv3...

...but were afraid to ask in case it made plain your inability to grok the legalistic subtleties. Though hardly an idiot's guide to the version 3 of the GNU GPL, this Quick Guide to GPLv3 from the FSF itself is certainly very welcome.

Software Patents: Abolition Now!

One of the constant themes of this blog is the pernicious effect of software patents - both in countries where they exist, like the US, and even elsewhere, like the UK, where they don't, because of knock-on effects. So it's good to see that someone is finally getting to grips with the problem on the other side of the pond:

What could make the Free Software Foundation (FSF), proprietary software companies, and at least one venture capitalist into allies? The End Software Patents (ESP) coalition, a new organization poised to swing into action next month under the leadership of Ben Klemens.

The campaign currently has seed funding of a quarter million dollars from sources those associated with the group won't disclose, and hopes to augment that with donations from individuals and companies for a struggle that, to judge by the usual amount of time it takes to push major changes through the US Supreme Court, could take five years or more to complete.

I won't be holding my breath on this one, but it can only help raise awareness and - ultimately - lead to some sanity being brought into a seriously broken system.

Joining the GPLv3 Samba

So Samba has officially joined the GPLv3 dance. It's certainly a biggie, and I'm sure that over the coming months more and more such high-profile projects will follow suit. As for the Linux kernel, I fear that the difficulty of getting every contributor on board will scupper any concerted move. But for the FSF's purposes, the main thing is that practically everything else moves up.

Happy Hacking v3

GPLv3 is out.

The GNU GPL Is Dead - Not

Bizarre:

The FSF should realize by now their influence is waning. Look at the plethora of alternative licenses. Now they’re really hamstringing themselves with Version 3, taking the license further and further from where industry developers are heading. Developers are still the heart of the open source community, and their support is integral to success. Are provisions concerned with patents and digital rights management really what developers want to see addressed? Do they care when Eben Moglen says "the time is rapidly approaching when the GPL is capable of leveling the monopolist to the ground?" Developers demand more freedom, not less. They want clear, practical leadership, not bombast.

Er, well, no, actually: more and more companies are adopting the GNU GPL; indeed, many that started out with dual licensing end up using just the GPL (for the full half-hour argument see hier.) The plethora of other licences represent background noise in comparison.

What's interesting is how, after years in the wilderness, RMS, the GNU GPL and the FSF all find themselves at the centre of so many debates around freedom and openness - not because they've moved there, but because the debates have moved to them.

The Joy (and Utility) of FUD

As I've written elsewhere, Microsoft's FUD is more interesting for what it says about the company's deepest fears than for its overt message. This is certainly the case for the latest example:

Coverage of the debate on the new version of the GNU Public License (GPLv3) has focused on the differing opinions among three groups: Project leaders like Linus Torvalds and other top Linux kernel developers; Foundations like the Free Software Foundation (FSF) led by Richard Stallman; and Large Technology Companies such as Sun, HP, IBM, and Novell. While these three groups are certainly all affected by revisions to the GPL, open source developers are also affected, but have been significantly under-represented in the discussion. In this paper, our objective was to give developers a voice and bring their opinions into the debate. What does this fourth constituency think about open source licenses, the upcoming release of the GPLv3, and the philosophies surrounding open source software?

Actually, I lied: the results in this particular case, although predictable, are so hilarious that they deserve wider airing:

Thus our results suggest the actions of the FSF may only be favored by approximately 10% of the broader community and leads us to ask, should a committee be created with a charter to create and revise open source licenses using a governance model similar to that of the open source development model? Is it contrary to the spirit of the open source community, which relies on the wisdom and view of the masses, to have the governance of licenses controlled by a few individuals whose views run contrary to the objectives of potentially 90% of the people affected by their actions, especially when the community members are the very creators and developers of the software under discussion?

Hello, people: those "few individuals" you are talking about are essentially Richard Stallman, as in Richard Stallman who single-handedly started this whole thing, fought most of the key battles, and even wrote some of the most important code, alone. And you're questioning his right to revise the licence that he - as in Richard Stallman - devised and then gave to the world?

But of course the main takeaway from this is that Microsoft is really, really worried by precisely those new provisions in GPLv3 that are designed to limit its ability to subvert free software, to the extent that it would even contemplate publishing a sponsored report of this kind based on - wait for it - a massive 34 replies out of 332 requests; talk about "few individuals".

Thanks for the info, chaps.

An OGGly Duckling?

One of the things I love about Richard Stallman's crusade for freedom is that it is so uncompromising. This means that it tends to espouse strict, unimpeachable positions that may not be totally practical (which he would doubtless say is irrelevant).

A case in point is the new PlayOGG campaign, which encourages people to ditch MP3 files and use the OGG standard instead. Now, I yield to none in my admiration for OGG, but I really can't see this happening. Moreover, it's not long until the troublesome patents on MP3 expire anyway, so the whole question will become moot.