ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Free software"
(add quote on patents from FSDG) |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | '''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. | ||
{{also|Free software projects harmed by software patents}} | {{also|Free software projects harmed by software patents}} | ||
| Line 6: | Line 5: | ||
"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 | + | 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". |
==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 can directly block these freedoms, and can indirectly interfere with them because they generally 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 interfere with | ||
==How patents affect free software== | ==How patents affect free software== | ||
| − | ===Advantages of | + | ===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> | * 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> | ||
| − | ===Disadvantages of | + | ===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. | * 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> | ||
| Line 30: | Line 27: | ||
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> | ||
| − | == | + | ==Free System Distribution Guidelines== |
| + | The [[Free Software Foundation]] strives for creating completely free systems, ones that do not contain any proprietary software. However, it is acknowledged that the danger of software patents is so ubiquitous that it would be impossible to control whether a piece of software infringes any patents:<ref>{{web |title=Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG) |url=https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#patents |archive=true |website=gnu.org }}</ref> | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | It is effectively impossible for free software developers and distributors to know whether or not a given piece of software infringes any patents: there are too many of them, they vary from country to country, they're often worded so as to make it hard to tell what they do or don't cover, and it isn't easy to tell which ones are valid. Therefore, we don't generally ask free system distributions to exclude software because of possible threats from patents. On the other hand, we also don't object if a distributor chooses to omit some software in order to avoid patent risk. | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | ==Related pages== | ||
* [[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 45: | Line 48: | ||
* [[Free software exception]] - make just free software safe from patents?? | * [[Free software exception]] - make just free software safe from patents?? | ||
* [[FRAND]] - discrimination via "Reasonable, and non-discriminatory" terms | * [[FRAND]] - discrimination via "Reasonable, and non-discriminatory" terms | ||
| + | * [[LiMux]] - project to migrate Munich city to GNU/Linux | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
| − | + | {{process}} | |
* [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The Free Software Definition], '''gnu.org''' | * [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The Free Software Definition], '''gnu.org''' | ||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_and_free_software Software patents and free software], '''Wikipedia''' | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_and_free_software Software patents and free software], '''Wikipedia''' | ||
| Line 61: | Line 65: | ||
* [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=== | ||
| − | |||
* [https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PatentPolicy Ubuntu's patent policy] | * [https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PatentPolicy Ubuntu's patent policy] | ||
* [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== | ||
Latest revision as of 23:40, 20 May 2023
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 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".
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 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]
Free System Distribution Guidelines
The Free Software Foundation strives for creating completely free systems, ones that do not contain any proprietary software. However, it is acknowledged that the danger of software patents is so ubiquitous that it would be impossible to control whether a piece of software infringes any patents:[6]
It is effectively impossible for free software developers and distributors to know whether or not a given piece of software infringes any patents: there are too many of them, they vary from country to country, they're often worded so as to make it hard to tell what they do or don't cover, and it isn't easy to tell which ones are valid. Therefore, we don't generally ask free system distributions to exclude software because of possible threats from patents. On the other hand, we also don't object if a distributor chooses to omit some software in order to avoid patent risk.
Related pages
- Free software distributors paying patent tax
- Free software projects harmed by software patents
- Vulnerable free software with shielded binaries
- 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
- 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
This entry contains unprocessed external links.
The "External links" section should only contain links to related websites, not articles. You can help us digest the information contained in these links and include it in the body of the article with appropriate citations.
- 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
- 4 ways open source [free software] protects you against software patents, 8 Nov 2013, Simon Phipps
Pages from GNU/Linux distributions
- Ubuntu's patent policy
- Fedora's software patent information page
- Debian Position on Software Patents
References
- ↑ http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2011/debian-patent-policy-faq.html
- ↑ http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-140650.html
- ↑ http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9593_22-141018.html
- ↑ http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-142967.html
- ↑ http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/45271
- ↑ Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG)[archived], gnu.org.
