ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Free software"
m (typo) |
(* Distributing source code (which is possible for free software) carries less patent risk than distributing executable binaries, according to SFLC, since "''source code, like the patent disclosure) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''Free software''' is software which can be used, copied, redistributed, and whose source code can be viewed, modified, and also redistributed. See also: | '''Free software''' is software which can be used, copied, redistributed, and whose source code can be viewed, modified, and also redistributed. See also: | ||
| − | * [[ | + | * [[Free software projects harmed by software patents]] |
"Free software" is not a subtopic of [[software patents]]. Development and distribution of all types of software carry the risk of patent infringement. The reason these two topics often appear together is that, firstly, the free software community is very active and vocal in campaigning against software patents, and secondly, software patents threaten a general freedom that free software users value: the freedom to participate in software development. | "Free software" is not a subtopic of [[software patents]]. Development and distribution of all types of software carry the risk of patent infringement. The reason these two topics often appear together is that, firstly, the free software community is very active and vocal in campaigning against software patents, and secondly, software patents threaten a general freedom that free software users value: the freedom to participate in software development. | ||
| − | + | The term '''open source''' is a near-synonym. Patents affect the freedom that users and developers have when dealing with software. Patents don't affect "openness", so {{SITENAME}} will use the term "free software". | |
| − | |||
| − | The term '''open source''' is a near-synonym. Patents affect the freedom that users and developers have when dealing with software. Patents don't affect "openness", so {{SITENAME}} | ||
==Why free software groups should be involved== | ==Why free software groups should be involved== | ||
| Line 16: | Line 14: | ||
==How patents affect free software== | ==How patents affect free software== | ||
| − | + | ===Advantages of FS faced with patents=== | |
* The development models are more distributed, so there's often no single big company behind a software package. This means there are fewer tempting targets for [[patent trolls]] | * The development models are more distributed, so there's often no single big company behind a software package. This means there are fewer tempting targets for [[patent trolls]] | ||
* If a patent holder makes a threat, anyone can remove that one feature from free software packages. The patent holder could still sue for past damages, but could not force the package to be entirely removed from the market, and the continued use of that patented idea is a decision that can be made by the users, not by making a deal with a single distributor. | * If a patent holder makes a threat, anyone can remove that one feature from free software packages. The patent holder could still sue for past damages, but could not force the package to be entirely removed from the market, and the continued use of that patented idea is a decision that can be made by the users, not by making a deal with a single distributor. | ||
| + | * Distributing source code (which is possible for free software) carries less patent risk than distributing executable binaries, according to [[SFLC]], since "''source code, like the patent disclosures themselves, teaches how the invention works, rather than being the invention [...and...] courts ''may'' find source code to be speech''"<ref>http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2011/debian-patent-policy-faq.html</ref> | ||
| − | + | ===Disadvantages of FS faced with patents=== | |
| − | * Many patent licensing agreements are structured in a way that excludes free software. If there is a per-copy fee, even if the amount is | + | * Many patent licensing agreements are structured in a way that excludes free software. If there is a per-copy fee, even if the amount is minuscule, there's no way to comply with this requirement because distributors can't know how many copies the users will make. |
==[[Patent promises]] in 2005== | ==[[Patent promises]] in 2005== | ||
Revision as of 21:07, 21 August 2011
Free software is software which can be used, copied, redistributed, and whose source code can be viewed, modified, and also redistributed. See also:
"Free software" is not a subtopic of software patents. Development and distribution of all types of software carry the risk of patent infringement. The reason these two topics often appear together is that, firstly, the free software community is very active and vocal in campaigning against software patents, and secondly, software patents threaten a general freedom that free software users value: the freedom to participate in software development.
The term open source is a near-synonym. Patents affect the freedom that users and developers have when dealing with software. Patents don't affect "openness", so ESP Wiki will use the term "free software".
Contents
Why free software groups should be involved
The free software movement says that everyone should be allowed to modify and redistribute the software they use. Software patents interfere with this because they can add legal risks and costs to software development and distribution.
How patents affect free software
Advantages of FS faced with patents
- The development models are more distributed, so there's often no single big company behind a software package. This means there are fewer tempting targets for patent trolls
- If a patent holder makes a threat, anyone can remove that one feature from free software packages. The patent holder could still sue for past damages, but could not force the package to be entirely removed from the market, and the continued use of that patented idea is a decision that can be made by the users, not by making a deal with a single distributor.
- Distributing source code (which is possible for free software) carries less patent risk than distributing executable binaries, according to SFLC, since "source code, like the patent disclosures themselves, teaches how the invention works, rather than being the invention [...and...] courts may find source code to be speech"[1]
Disadvantages of FS faced with patents
- Many patent licensing agreements are structured in a way that excludes free software. If there is a per-copy fee, even if the amount is minuscule, there's no way to comply with this requirement because distributors can't know how many copies the users will make.
Patent promises in 2005
IBM promised, for 500 of its patents, not to use them against free software.[2]
Sun[3] and Nokia[4] subsequently made promises that were so narrow in scope, they were qualified as "empty" and "next to nothing", respectively, by Richard Stallman.[5]
Could free software get a special exception from the patent system?
This proposal has been raised many times, but has not been pursued by any major campaign organisation (for example: ESP, FFII, FSF, and FSFE).
Some reasons why free software organisations do not pursue this idea:
- It strongly implies that software is patentable
- It requires a legal definition of "free software"
- It cuts that organisation off from the main campaigns against software patents
Some additional reasons why organisations which are agnostic to software freedom do not pursue this (as, for example, a stepping stone):
- It would leave the majority of the economic harms of patents
- There are no well developed proposals
- It's more work because it requires convincing legislators of two things:
- free software is special
- special software should be exempt from the patent system
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Free software distributors paying patent tax
- Free software projects harmed by software patents
- Fake representatives of free software
- Harm to standards (examples include OpenGL 3, MPEG video formats, and GIF)
- Patent clauses in software licences
- passive threats - a common way that free software is "targeted"
- Patent promises - many of which are somewhat focussed on free software
- Novell-Microsoft patent deals
- Richard Stallman
- Free Software Foundation
- Breaks software distribution methods
External links
- The Free Software Definition, gnu.org
- Software patents and free software, Wikipedia
- CALIU: Patents Threathen Free Software
- Operating systems will be developed by lawyers not programmers, 2006, FTI South Africa
- Microsoft seeks $50 per copy of Xandros GNU/Linux, 15 June 2009 (plus itWire coverage)
- "Effects of Software Patents on Free/Open Source/User Innovation", slides / video (works with Gnash)
- FSF's amicus brief for the 2009 Supreme Court case, contains details of how free software is important and how it's affected
- Patents - Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than Non-Free Software, September 2004, by Dan Ravicher
- (See also: Harm with neither litigation nor threats)
- A 2004 patent deal regarding StarOffice/OpenOffice.org, signed with Sun Microsystems
- 2010-03-09: Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal, by Johnathan Schwartz of Sun Microsystems about patent threats from Apple and from Microsoft regarding OpenOffice.org
- Patents as a threat to Free and Open Source Software, April 2010, by Florian Mueller
- Considerations For FLOSS Hackers About Oracle vs. Google, 16 Aug 2010, by Bradley Kuhn
