ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Free software"

(Could free software get a special exception from the patent system?)
(Add "freedom, not price")
(19 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navbox}}
+
'''Free software''' (free referring to freedom, not price) is software which can be used, copied, redistributed, and whose source code can be viewed, modified, and also redistributed.
'''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]]
+
{{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.
  
[Free software stands out in important ways as covered in the Discussion page under the section [[Talk:Free_software#Free_Software_has_important_differences_as_concerns_arguments| Free_Software_has_important_differences_as_concerns_arguments]]. Some can make a clearer case that free software should not be constrained by patents when we look at promote the progress or free speech concerns.]
+
The term '''open source''' is a near-synonym.  Patents restrict the freedom that users and developers have when dealing with software.  Patents don't affect "openness", so {{SITENAME}} mostly uses 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}} should use the term "free software".
 
  
 
==Why free software groups should be involved==
 
==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.
+
The free software movement says that everyone should be allowed to modify and redistribute the software they use.  Software patents can directly block these freedoms, and can indirectly interfere with them because they generally add legal risks and costs to software development and distribution.
  
==How patents effect free software==
+
==How patents affect free software==
  
Free software has some advantages:
+
===Advantages of free software 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 [[freedom of expression|speech]]''".<ref>http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2011/debian-patent-policy-faq.html</ref>
  
Free software also has certain difficulties:
+
===Disadvantages of free software 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 miniscule, there's no way to comply with this requirement because distributors can't know how many copies the users will make.
+
* 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==
 +
{{also|Blanket patent licences and promises}}
  
 
IBM promised, for 500 of its patents, not to use them against free software.<ref>http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-140650.html</ref>
 
IBM promised, for 500 of its patents, not to use them against free software.<ref>http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-140650.html</ref>
  
 
Sun<ref>http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9593_22-141018.html</ref> and Nokia<ref>http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-142967.html</ref> subsequently made promises that were so narrow in scope, they were qualified as "empty" and "next to nothing", respectively, by [[Richard Stallman]].<ref>http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/45271</ref>
 
Sun<ref>http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9593_22-141018.html</ref> and Nokia<ref>http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-142967.html</ref> subsequently made promises that were so narrow in scope, they were qualified as "empty" and "next to nothing", respectively, by [[Richard Stallman]].<ref>http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/45271</ref>
 
==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 [This is psychology-speak not sound reason. The approach isn't even necessarily wise. There are many reasons to support giving a head of household the right to vote even if the real solution is to give all people the right to vote. There is in fact a stronger argument to give at least head of household the right to vote, and you risk much more by not doing so.]
 
* It requires a legal definition of "free software" [We can argue that any reasonable definition should at worst be inclusive. This helps everyone.]
 
* It cuts that organisation off from the main campaigns against software patents [Execution is important, and certainly the opposite effect might be achieved. We can think about the head-of-household vote example above. FOSS helps give a strength to arguments that apply to all of software but which were difficult to make prior to FOSS. Without crowding out proprietary, you can in fact accentuate FOSS at some point and let people know that it is intolerable to knock this down. One reasons IBM and others have helped FOSS on the surface is because they do gain extra from it and fear would alienate many customers and the FOSS community. If we didn't care that much, IBM and others would have little to worry about. Don't deny the truth or you short-change everyone. At the end, by increasing coverage, there are more arguments against some part or other of software, especially since we can expect that proprietary supporters will sneak in that FOSS should be excluded even if they can't really justify it. More arguments and bifurcations lets people know all of this stuff has backing and affects many people. This can end up promoting a simpler solution (with the safe bet being to give all software a pass). I think that if proprietary vendors know that FOSS might get in by itself, and they do worry about software patents as they should (you can't deny its costs), then they have reason to seek support aggressively so that all software gets treated fairly. In particular, you can promote FOSS for more reasons without saying the other reasons don't exist and aren't sufficient (of course, proprietary vendors will be there to make sure the more general reasons get a vote). Again, think of the head-of-household voting example.]
 
 
Some additional reasons why organisations which are agnostic to software freedom do not pursue this (as, for example, a stepping stone): [It's not necessary for these groups to sell FOSS. In fact, they should focus on reasons that apply to all software (and likely will also have some reasons they think applies only to closed source). It's important not to have internal fighting that weakens, but there are special qualities about FOSS, especially if you are primarily a user and most entities are users. A great many people use software and develop for it without selling it. All of them gain extra from blueprints to software being available and having a low-cost non-lockin option.. even if the software they write is internal and they keep secret. Most or perhaps all free software supports users creating forks or using it in ways where they don't share. We all gain, no matter our use of it. Only a few groups focus on selling software relative to the number of those that use it and build internally. When FOSS is restricted unfairly, everyone out there is hampered. When proprietary is restricted unfairly, a much smaller number of people get hampered. And proprietary software, as stated on this page, is much better equipped ultimately to manage patent licenses, even if in the process many software houses lose their competitive edge. For FOSS patent licensing is largely intolerable. It's an injustice not to make sure this is recognized at some level sufficiently.]
 
 
* It would leave the majority of the economic harms of patents [This is debatable. In any case, there are also sizable free speech issues at stake.]
 
* There are no well developed proposals
 
* It's more work because it requires convincing legislators of ''two'' things:
 
*# free software is special [There is a stronger free speech argument here and you promote more progress and greater welfare when more access is available under generous terms.]
 
*# special software should be exempt from the patent system [See the head-of-household voting example above. That one class of restrictions is a lesser bad doesn't mean it isn't; however, the other restriction might be much less tolerable.]
 
  
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
Line 53: Line 34:
 
* [[Free software distributors paying patent tax]]
 
* [[Free software distributors paying patent tax]]
 
* [[Free software projects harmed by software patents]]
 
* [[Free software projects harmed by software patents]]
 +
* [[Vulnerable free software with shielded binaries]]
 
* [[Fake representatives of free software‎]]
 
* [[Fake representatives of free software‎]]
 
* [[Harm to standards]] (examples include [[OpenGL 3]], [[MPEG video formats]], and [[GIF]])
 
* [[Harm to standards]] (examples include [[OpenGL 3]], [[MPEG video formats]], and [[GIF]])
Line 62: Line 44:
 
* [[Free Software Foundation]]
 
* [[Free Software Foundation]]
 
* [[Breaks software distribution methods]]
 
* [[Breaks software distribution methods]]
 +
* [[Free software exception]] - make just free software safe from patents??
 +
* [[FRAND]] - discrimination via "Reasonable, and non-discriminatory" terms
 +
* [[LiMux]] - project to migrate Munich city to GNU/Linux
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
Line 78: Line 63:
 
* [http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/04/patents-as-threat-to-free-and-open.html Patents as a threat to Free and Open Source Software], April 2010, by '''[[Florian Mueller]]'''
 
* [http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/04/patents-as-threat-to-free-and-open.html Patents as a threat to Free and Open Source Software], April 2010, by '''[[Florian Mueller]]'''
 
* [http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/08/16/oracle-google.html Considerations For FLOSS Hackers About Oracle vs. Google], 16 Aug 2010, by '''[[Bradley Kuhn]]'''
 
* [http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/08/16/oracle-google.html Considerations For FLOSS Hackers About Oracle vs. Google], 16 Aug 2010, by '''[[Bradley Kuhn]]'''
 +
* [http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/4-ways-open-source-protects-you-against-software-patents-230433 4 ways open source <nowiki>[free software]</nowiki> protects you against software patents], 8 Nov 2013, '''[[Simon Phipps]]'''
  
 
===Pages from GNU/Linux distributions===
 
===Pages from GNU/Linux distributions===
Line 84: Line 70:
 
* [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Software_Patents Fedora's software patent information page]
 
* [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Software_Patents Fedora's software patent information page]
 
** [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CodecBuddy fedoraproject.org's comments about swpat and media codec policy]
 
** [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CodecBuddy fedoraproject.org's comments about swpat and media codec policy]
 +
* [http://www.debian.org/legal/patent Debian Position on Software Patents]
 +
** [http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq.en.html Community Distribution Patent Policy FAQ]
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
<references />
+
{{reflist}}
  
  

Revision as of 17:29, 9 February 2014

Free software (free referring to freedom, not price) 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.

The term open source is a near-synonym. Patents restrict the freedom that users and developers have when dealing with software. Patents don't affect "openness", so ESP Wiki mostly uses the term "free software".

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 can directly block these freedoms, and can indirectly interfere with them because they generally add legal risks and costs to software development and distribution.

How patents affect free software

Advantages of free software 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 free software 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

See also: Blanket patent licences and promises

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]

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

Pages from GNU/Linux distributions

References