ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Free software"

(rv two edits - see Talk)
(Add "freedom, not price")
(16 intermediate revisions by 2 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
 
* 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 {{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