Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Software Alliance's FRAND proposes to have Free software outlawed in the EU?

<< < (4/8) > >>

40hz:
Is blatant anti-EU racism, something which is becoming depressingly more common on DC.
-Eóin (February 29, 2012, 11:10 AM)
--- End quote ---

Point one: Funny. I've often felt the same way about what I consider US bashing on the part of DC members who live in the EU. But I don't dismiss what's said by them out of hand as nothing other than propaganda, spam, or lies.

Point two: I'm not sure the charge of racism is at all accurate since the EU does not constitute what's generally considered a racial group. The EU (like the rest of the world's nation states) consist of many different races and ethnic groups. So to speak of the EU (or the USA for that matter) as a monoculture is ludicrous.

When people criticize a nation, what they're really criticizing is its political rulers and institutions. Not the people residing within its borders.

In that most "representative" governments found in the western world are now anything but - it's an important distinction to keep in mind. Especially in an era when "national security" is becoming increasingly equated with hiding what's embarrassing to the current government's executive branch.

So to my mind, characterizing criticism of portions of the EU's political system as "anti-EU racism" is really a bit of a stretch. Feel free to disagree if you're so inclined.

Point three: As far as the FOSS people go, there's a bit more to their objection than you're giving it. Their objection is to the entire underlying argument for FRAND - because there really isn't any - other than to get everybody to accept a licensing scheme that very obviously favors commercial interests and interpretations of the notion of intellectual property.

I think the FOSS people quite frankly recognize FRAND for what it is: an attempt to let the proverbial camel get its head in their tent. Because once you accept such an interpretation and accept the need for such a license (any such license) the rest follows quite naturally. Microsoft is pulling this same thing with their assertion that Linux is infringing on their patent portfolio. Microsoft doesn't want to go to court and possibly (or likely) have many of those patents invalidated. What they prefer to do is target companies and distros one by one and twist their arms to sign licensing deals which acknowledge Microsoft's patents.

What Microsoft hopes to eventually do is assert its patent portfolio against any remaining holdouts once they believe they have a sufficient number of businesses signed up to claim they have established de facto acknowledgement of the validity of their patents. Once they have that, they will likely go to court and seek to enforce them against whoever still hasn't signed. The argument will go something like this:

 "Your Honor! If our patents are invalid as some here are saying, how do they explain the fact that so many major Linux based businesses - who also have the technical expertise to understand what the patents in question were granted for - have agreed both in principle and in fact to their validity? Why would they - being engineers and computer experts - seen fit to license from us - and furthermore to have paid the requested licensing fees - if they believed there was no merit to our claims?"


So when it comes to the free software crowd, it's not really so much they're objecting to the cost of getting a license. What they're objecting to is the argument such a license is needed to begin with. And that license is something the FRAND advocates have tried to position as a given rather than as a subject for further debate and clarification.

What FRAND is doing with this is very similar to the old sales trick of showing you something, and then handing you a pen and contract and saying "Would you prefer it in red or in blue?" before you even said you decided to buy it. It's called the "close on assumption" ploy. And it's one of a dozen sleazy techniques popular with less than ethical salesmen. You'd think the people involved in drafting far reaching legislation would be above such chicanery. But on the other hand...maybe not.

And the only rational adult response to such manipulative attempts is to step outside the frame the idiots are trying to put you in and say "None of the above."

FRAND asks how to best to implement a license they've already decided on. FOSS asks why is it necessary to go with such a license at all?

The real answer is because it would force FOSS to yield on all their objections about our current intellectual property laws and the problems with our patent and copyright system. In for a penny, in for a pound, as the saying goes. Once they accept such a license, FOSS and everything it stands for is effectively dead. FOSS knows that. And even more importantly, so do the proponents of FRAND. Which is why the FOSS world is not going to concede an inch on this without a fight. Nor is FOSS going to passively sit back and allow the FRAND advocates to define all the terms or frame the debate.

One of the first things an entrenched business does when it runs into outside innovation is to try to get the new thing declared illegal. Or failing that, to burden it with as many complex and costly regulations as possible. Because they know that size is an advantage when it comes to government regulatory requirements. They constitute a barrier to entry into a market since new and small companies often can't afford the business infrastructure needed to comply. Besides, stifling innovation and slowing change is much easier and safer than competing on merits anyway.

That's what FRAND is setting the stage to do. And I'm sorry of it's pissing some people off that the FOSS world isn't falling for it.

So be it.

Onward! :Thmbsup:

40hz:
You can disagree without being personal.
-mouser (February 29, 2012, 11:21 AM)
--- End quote ---

Agree.  :Thmbsup:

As a friend of mine so aptly put it: You can be passionate about something without having to get angry over it. So share your passions. And try not to give in too easily to the pleasure of self-righteous anger,

tomos:
I don't really knows whats happening with the political propaganda being spammed on DC recently.-Eóin (February 29, 2012, 09:28 AM)
--- End quote ---

I wouldnt phrase it that way myself, but there has been a bit of a "bandwagon" lately here...
Info is often presented in a senstational and/or biased fashion, everyone agrees, and it can feel like a closed shop.
As mouser said earlier today:

...the real issues are [often] a little more nuanced than our first reactions.-mouser (February 28, 2012, 08:40 PM)
--- End quote ---

40hz:
there has been a bit of a "bandwagon" lately here...
-tomos (February 29, 2012, 12:54 PM)
--- End quote ---

???

tomos:
there has been a bit of a "bandwagon" lately here...
-tomos (February 29, 2012, 12:54 PM)
--- End quote ---

???-40hz (February 29, 2012, 01:37 PM)
--- End quote ---

yeah, sorry, stupid word, but I was at a loss. I think the post reads ok if you just leave out that clause - if not just read mouser's quote :-)
it sums up what I wanted to express...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page