Newsmaker: The open-source programmer who means business

Alan Cox is so well-regarded in the open-source software community that he can pull in a crowd of eager techies to discuss theoretical software stability on a Sunday afternoon, as he did at last year's FOSDEM conference in Brussels.

Cox wrote much of the original networking subsystem in Linux more than a decade ago, and he has maintained and contributed code toward various kernel releases. Now employed by Linux vendor Red Hat, he is a leading figure in the open-source software community. He has spoken out frequently against issues that he feels jeopardize freedom, such as software patents and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Last week, after Cox's talk at a Trusted Computing conference in London, ZDNet UK spoke to him about a wide range of topics, including the next version of the General Public License, software patents, the kernel development process and Linux on the desktop.

Q: The first public discussion draft of GPL 3 (General Public License version 3) was released a couple of weeks ago. What are your initial thoughts on it?
Cox: The majority of it looks very sensible, such as letting copyright information be displayed in an "about" box, rather than relying on command line instructions (as is the case in GPL 2). Some of the more contentious stuff has sensibly been made optional.

One of the other nice things is the work to make the GPL compatible with other licenses. That's really important--it will allow people to share more code.

What do you think about the new provision in the GPL 3 draft that opposes digital rights management?
Cox: From the kernel perspective, it doesn't really matter. DRM is generally used by applications, so it's more a question for things like the (GNU) C library. (Editor's note: Shortly after ZDNet UK spoke to Alan Cox, Linux founder Linus Torvalds spoke out against GPL 3, saying that he won't convert Linux to the new version, as he objects to the proposed digital rights management provisions.)

Last year, Sony BMG was criticized after it was discovered that some CDs automatically installed copy-restriction software that it had hidden using a rootkit-like technology. In your talk at the Trusted Computing conference, you said that the potential problem with DRM was highlighted by the recent Sony debacle and that there is going to be "an almighty power struggle" between the content industry and users. Where do you think the balance of power is at the moment?
Cox: I'm not sure where the balance of power is. There is a lot of evidence that it's on the music and computer industry's side. But I think Sony has learned its lesson, and it's been quite an expensive lesson.

There needs to be a clear understanding of what's allowed--a computer is private property, but we don't know what this means legally. I think some of it's going to come down to government competition regulation--how you may or may not use DRM, in particular if you're in a monopoly position.

Last year, the software patent directive was rejected by European Parliament. The debate around such patents has now reopened, with the European Commission's launch of a public consultation into how the patent system should be changed. As one of the people who campaigned against software patents the first time around, how do you feel about the fact that they're back on the agenda?
Cox: I'm astounded. On one hand, we have Microsoft being threatened with multimillion-pound fines by the EU, and on the other hand, they're being offered software patents--Microsoft is one of the big influencers of this issue.

At the end of the day, software should not be patentable.

It is worrying that they're back on the agenda. It's a sign of more fundamental problems in the EU. The democratic process (of the European Parliament) is being devolved (to the unelected European Commission). It's what people call policy laundering: "It's a good idea, but we'll never get it past the electorate, so let's slip it through and then pass it on to the individual governments."

If that's the case, what can people do to campaign against software patents?
Cox: The first thing is to write to MEPs (Members of European Parliament). It's not even necessarily about content; it's about demonstrating the sheer number of people that care about this issue. What we did last time wasn't about the fineness of letters--the FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) got 300,000 signatures. The Commission can ignore this, but parliament has to get re-elected.

It will be very hard, though. The fact that there are almost no lobbying laws in the EU is a very big problem. In other places lobbyists are accountable.

The Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) has launched a patent library, to aggregate information on patents that have been pledged to the open-source community. How important do you think such initiatives will be?
Cox: That work is going to be very important, but at the end of the day, software should not be patentable. There is a challenging area where you have hardware and software together, but it is the hardware bit that should be patentable.

A number of technology companies, including IBM and Microsoft, have called for the reform of the U.S. patent system. How much hope does this give you?
Cox: Things are slowly turning the right direction, but it's really only baby steps. Companies are being forced to admit that maybe there is a problem, but no one's said how to fix it.

More Newsmakers

[katamari]

Shave your face.

Identical to Richard Stallman -- shave your face.

No one will listen to someone who cannot maintain their own personal hygiene.

If Eric Raymond can do it (well, almost), so can you.

[ddesy]

Shouldn't matter

How someone looks shouldn't matter - only the quality of their work and their attitude.

Besides, you can have a beard and still be a clean person.

[t8]

Shame on you for judging by appearance

This is the root of racism, sexism, and just about every other ism.

It is the heart of a person that counts. Fancy not knowing that.

[Bob Brinkman]

as some one

Who maintains a full beard and handlebar mustache I can assure you I spend more time on grooming in a day then you do in a week, unless you keep your hair in cute little braids to match your soft smooth face.

[AbuAnas]

You should have..

wished that you have half of his beard and at least one tenth of his BRAIN!

At least you then you'll have the bless of thinking

'nuff said

[felgercarbnaysay]

Open source poseur

He should also lose the hat. Talking about open source while wearing that trademark is the height of hypocrisy. I'm sick of all these bearded phonies like him and "Maddog" running around re-telling the 30 year old story of UNIX as though they had a lot to do with it. Meanwhile IBM pays them their honoraria as they hit the speakers circuit pushing old technology and ideas. Global Services arrives to bleed the customer dry once they figure out they don't have enough bearded kernel tweakers in house to get their applications running. That's "open"? Gimmie a break! If I want to hear about portability and openness I'll listen to the original Beards: Kernighan, Thompson & Richie.

[Zymurgist]

He works for the trademark holder.

The red fedora hat he's wearing is a trademark
of his employer, RedHat. Alan Cox is anything
but a poseur -- he's one very prolific
programmer and very highly regarded in and out
of the Linux community (in fact, on several
occasions Microsoft's hired him to give seminars
to their research departments).

He makes no assertion that he had anything to do
with UNIX, but he's been working with UNIX for a
very long time and his contribution to the
development of Linux is second only to Torvalds
himself.

He doesn't get the public ear that Torvalds,
Jobs, Gates, Ellison, and others do, but in the
industry he's extremely well known, highly
regarded, a surprisingly influential.

[apowalka]

Patents vs. Microsoft (where's IBM in this?)

This is quite common issue that whatever bad or evil happens, you put Microsoft tag on it.

yes, Microsoft has o lot of IP in it's software and they want to protect it. that's just obvious.

What no-one seems to remember is that it is IBM who has a majority of it's revenue coming from licencing of it's (or aquired) patents.

Microsoft is far, far behing IBM in this particular matter.

But, of course it's much easier to sell Microsoft as evil-doer...

[herkamur]

IBM, Microsoft and Linux

I think the reason IBM is not considered in the patent issue is simply because IBM is not perceived as a threat to GNU/Linux while Microsoft is. IBM is a GNU/Linux supporter and has in fact bet a large part of their business model on it. To use a cliché: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

[t8]

Shame on you for judging by appearance.

This is the root of racism, sexism, and just about every other ism.

It is the heart of a person that counts. Fancy not knowing that.

[JoeCrow]

One time can someone NOT fit the stereotype

Is it possible to have a clean shave, fit, healthy, non-Star Trekkie, socially adept person be a programmer. Let's face it folks, most stereotypes are accurate so quick b1tching if someone is making fun of you. Work it!

[hellotherebuddy]

Hmm

Well, judging from the fact that you seem to think that all programmers are unshaven, unfit, unhealthy and trekkies, and clearly have disdain for people who are those things, it's reasonable to assume that you are either a self loathing programmer, or some sort of weird programmer groupie who is not a programmer, but seems to have some sort of emotional stock in the appearance of programmers... and that's ... well... kind of creepy.

Actually, if you walk into a software company that writes software for UNIX, as I do every day, then you'll notice that most people who work there are clean shaven, well dressed, healthy, and socially adept. The people who are stereotypically like that are not professional programmers, but the people on the academic side of things.

[geraldkrug]

software patent discussion

software patents


Forums > Speakers' corner

Search forum:


Start new subject | Reply to this subject
[1]

geraldkrug
Thu, 19/01/06@07:06

I am an intellectual property, IP, owner. I have copyrighted 56 computer programs. I can sue anyone who re-produces my work for commercial gain that didn't get a license from me for my permission. The reason why I haven't sued un-licensed companies is because I didn't want to stiffle the computer revolution. I think copyrights (not patents) are the tool to use for computer programs. Patents are granted to stimulate the market place and if the patent owner does not market a product based on the patent he loses his right to the patent to a company that will produce a real product. This rule was brought by president Ronald Regan so patent owners could not just "sit" on patents
and then sue if some company brought out a product based on "their" patent.
Two companies did bring a similar patented product to the market at about the same time and the courts choose one company to market first, until one million products were sold, then the other company could enter the market legally. It's easier to get investor money for patents than for copyrights, sadly, so I see a need to change that so smaller companies with truly new computer programs will get to market on a national scale.
I believe if I enter the fray on this issue I could bring alot of clarity.
I also believe that computers have matured to the point that truly new marketable products will become more and more rair so why bother with the software patent issue at all.


?dstowe
Thu, 19/01/06@09:13

"Patents are granted to stimulate the market place and if the patent owner does not market a product based on the patent he loses his right to the patent to a company that will produce a real product. This rule was brought by president Ronald Regan so patent owners could not just "sit" on patents
and then sue if some company brought out a product based on "their" patent."

Could you direct me to the official citation of this rule please?


DieSse
Thu, 19/01/06@13:49

*I have copyrighted 56 computer programs.*

As an actual copyright owner, what's your personal view on how long such copyrights should hold good for?


ShalafiStudios
Thu, 19/01/06@14:26

Is it ethically correct?

After all, programs are grooves on a piece of plastic or numbers on a hard drive, anyone can reproduce them. As an amateur software designer, All my software is freeware. I believe that software should be free for all, it is a tool, no one copyrighted a hammer, after all!


SG Atlantis®
Thu, 19/01/06@16:00

ShalafiStudios

"After all, programs are grooves on a piece of plastic or numbers on a hard drive, anyone can reproduce them."

If you look at everything that way, then art is just canvas and paint swirled around on it, music is just sounds arranged a particular way. Doesn't mean anyone can just copy it, legally!

"no one copyrighted a hammer, after all!"

no one gives them away for free either...


?dstowe
Thu, 19/01/06@16:20

Before this moves into a free for all, I genuinely would like to know the answer to my question above.


wee eddie
Thu, 19/01/06@16:24

geraldkrug

"I also believe that computers have matured to the point that truly new marketable products will become more and more rare so why bother with the software patent issue at all."

I can remember someone in the late 60's saying that all the possible songs possible had already been written and that pop music would stultify and die. Fat chance, but they hadn't heard the Gallagher Brothers.

Computers are unlikely to cease, their format will change, radically. The writing is already on the wall for the standard box PC, although what will form follow it is not yet certain.


Haol
Thu, 19/01/06@16:49

so why bother with the software patent issue at al

and certain types of licenses aswell.


Rigga
Thu, 19/01/06@16:57

ShalafiStudios

As you state you are an amateur software designer, so presumably you make your living from something else?

I am a professional software designer and writer, and I make my living through people paying for the programs I spend eight hours a day writing, and I am extremely protective of my software, which is all copyrighted.

I do however disagree with patents on software and processes!, but agree with geraldkrug copyright should be enforced rigidly.

R.


geraldkrug
Thu, 19/01/06@20:18

Patents, use em or lose em...

I searched yahoo with "President Ronald Reagan Memorandum on Government Patent Policy"
found...

click here


?march-in rights? This is a very obscure rule to be sure.I remember the place I found this.Let

me find it again for you.Oh!Here it is.


The third taxpayer protection included in Bayh-Dole is the government?s retained ?march-in

rights.? These provisions entitle a funding agency to issue nonexclusive licenses or to require

a contractee or exclusive licensee to grant nonexclusive licenses to other applicants if the

agency determines that:

?(1) Such action is necessary because the contractor or assignee has not taken, or is not

expected to take within a reasonable time, effective steps to achieve practical application of

the subject invention in such field of use;

(2) Such action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs which are not reasonably

satisfied by the contractor, assignee or their licensees;

(3) Such action is necessary to meet requirements for public use specified by Federal

regulations and such requirements are not reasonably satisfied by the contractor, assignee or

licensees; or

(4) Such action is necessary because the agreement required by paragraph (i) of this clause

has not been obtained or waived or because a licensee of the exclusive right to use or sell any

subject invention in the United States is in breach of such agreement.? 37 C.F.R. § 401.14(j)

(emphasis added).


The term practical application is defined as:

?to manufacture in the case of a composition or product, to practice in the case of a process or

method, or to operate in the case of a machine or system; and, in each case, under such

conditions as to establish that the invention is being utilized and that its benefits are, to the

extent permitted by law or government regulations, available to the public on reasonable

terms.? 37 C.F.R. § 401.14(a)(3) (emphasis added).


The march-in rights were intended to prevent two outcomes: First, where a private entity sits

on a taxpayer-funded invention and fails to commercialize it in a timely fashion; and, second,

where a private entity takes advantage of the exclusive license and charges an unreasonable

price for the product. Although no specific formula was put forward to calculate what

constitutes an unreasonable price and profit, it is fair to say that the march-in provisions were

intended to protect against corporate windfalls. Of course, the Act certainly contemplated

some return on investment, for such a return is necessary to induce commercialization.


geraldkrug
Thu, 19/01/06@20:43

bar set way too high

For example,I want to produce a smart wristwatch
to do a fun calculation for the wearer/user.
It is impossible to get an LCD maker to produce this for my company to my liking.The technology exists, but not for me, WHY?
Corporate Facism?
?march-in rights? makes severe penalties to any companys that do not sell (patented) goods to buyers.


?dstowe
Thu, 19/01/06@22:18

Thanks for that - looks very interesting but I will have to leave it until tomorrow (late for me now - up early in the morning).


DieSse
Thu, 19/01/06@22:30

By email - from geraldkrug

*Well lets see, it's authors life plus 17 years, I think. If you haven't made your money/contribution to society by then it may be worthless to any one to own.What do you think?*

With respect, I didn't ask what it was - I asked your opinion as a software copyright holder, of what it should be.


Forum Editor
Thu, 19/01/06@22:43

I'm not sure where you think you're going

with this. I'm an intellectual property rights/copyright holder, too, as are many other forum members, and I certainly don't have any problem with the copyright law as it exists - at least as it exists here, in the UK.

American copyright legislation went slightly off the rails in my opinion when the law was changed, effectively to accomodate the Disney corporation.

Complaining that "Corporate Facism" might be why you can't get an LCD maker to produce your product is a paranoid touch isn't it? Perhaps the reason is that your product isn't of sufficient interest to these companies. If you're convinced that your licence is being wrongly or deliberately witheld you can ask the appropriate Federal Agency to intervene - it has the power under the march in rights clause to grant the licence iself if it's convinced your claim is valid.


wee eddie
Fri, 20/01/06@00:21

geriatric

Have you thought that the Companies you asked might not feel that it is worth their while. e.g there's not enough profit in it for their Shareholders.

There may be a dozen other reasons why they do not wish to do business with you. That's their prerogative.

If the product is so good. Why don't you make it yourself?


Mytob
Fri, 20/01/06@18:37

opensource is the way forward in my opinion. It allows the most inovation and compertition between people. Money is made not on the product but the support for the product and boxed copys. This is how novell work with suse linux and others like mandriva and it seems to be working for them.


ShalafiStudios
Sat, 21/01/06@09:26

A word to SG Atlantis

"If you look at everything that way, then art is just canvas and paint swirled around on it, music is just sounds arranged a particular way. Doesn't mean anyone can just copy it, legally!"

Could I ask you not to compare computers to art? Art and music are expressions for human emotion and belief whereas Software is a tool.

Finally, I ask you why do programmers get paid everytime their software is sold? A doctor is generally paid less, and he doesn't get paid after every patient he saves (in the UK).


Forum Editor
Sat, 21/01/06@16:56

"why do programmers get paid

every time their software is sold?"

Because it's their creation, in just the same way that an original oil-painting is a creation - they're both original works, and both protected by copyright. Buy a copy of either and included in the price will be a copyright licence fee.

Doctors are practitioners - they create no 'original work' and there's no earthly reason why they should be paid a copyright fee for doing their job, any more than I should, or any more than an ambulance driver should. To suggest otherwise is fatuous.


geraldkrug
Sun, 22/01/06@04:13

thank you all

I admit "Corporate Facism" is a bit much,Sorry.

I think if a copyright is still "valuable" the life should be extended till it's not then it goes freely to the public domain.

I know a company might not want to "buy" my watch idea but I have also wanted it made for me and I get no co-operation from LCD makers...

I want to be a "nice" company and I really don't want to sue anyone but if I soon have to patent my programs then what????

Thanks for your ideas everyone, checks in the mail.


Forum Editor
Sun, 22/01/06@10:46

I'll be in New York very soon

for a few day's work - you can send mine to my hotel.


PurplePenny
Sun, 22/01/06@13:56

I have copyrighted

You can't have "copyrighted" anything: copyright protection is automatic. The copyright holder need do nothing; copyright exists from the moment that a recorded form of an original work is created.

It is sensible to take further steps to protect your copyright and one of those steps is indeed to register your work with a body such as The UK Copyright Service; but you do not have to apply for protection the way you do for, say, a patent or trademark.


geraldkrug
Sun, 22/01/06@17:47

added noise

copyrights must be in a "fixed" form to automatically qualify as copyrighted.
By "fixed" I think it is meant, publishable, is that a word?
My-self I went the whole ten yards, Library of Congress.

Hotel in N.Y. WOW! that is really gonna cost me.


Forum Editor
Sun, 22/01/06@19:29

An original work

must indeed be in a fixed form before copyright applies. That is to say it must be written down, or painted, or sculpted, or take the form of an image (digital or otherwise). Copyright applies to 'works' and not concepts - you can't copyright an idea.

Patents apply to things like industrial processes or methodologies - if you invent a new way of joining metal sheets together to form aircraft wings you may be able to patent the process. Patents are about functional and technical aspects of products and processes. Most patents are granted in respect of improvements in known technology - evolution rather than revolution. When granted a patent you are effectively granted a monopoly allowing you the right for a limited period to stop others from making, using or selling your invention without your consent.


PurplePenny
Sun, 22/01/06@22:21

must be in a "fixed" form

... which is why I wrote "copyright exists from the moment that a recorded form of an original work is created."

LoC is a bit extreme. You could just have deposited with the one (or all) of the UK libraries of legal deposit (aka "the copyright libraries". We are the ones that the lawyers come to in dispute cases.


PurplePenny
Sun, 22/01/06@22:31

PS

Unless of course you are in the USA!


Rigga
Mon, 23/01/06@09:25

If only software patents were around in the early 60's when software and programming languages was starting to take shape, I wonder if I could have got a patent for the IF test?

A method by which branching is performed based on a logical comparison of two separate parts.

I'm sure by now I would either be extremely rich, or there would not be much software around. :)

R.


?dstowe
Mon, 23/01/06@10:49

For anyone interested in the "March-in Rights", this applies to 37CFR 401.14 Standard Patent Rights Clause"

Patent Rights (Small Business Firms and Nonprofit Organizations)"

The whole of 37CFR 401.14 can be found click here

Taken as a whole, there is a somewhat different emphasis in 37CFR 401.14 than there appears to be in the small section quoted.


geraldkrug
Mon, 23/01/06@18:40

interesting fact?

On my continued research on software patents it seems that to say a software is a process (something that effects the forces of nature) has been hard to prove but a German court said someting recently that seems right to me.
They said that a computer program "software" takes a certain amount of electricity to complete it's task so is in face an industrial process.
What do you all think?


PurplePenny
Mon, 23/01/06@21:59

I can see an argument but I don't agree with that particular criterion as a deciding factor: it is far too simplistic.

Both TV and films need electricity to complete their tasks. Without the electricity the medium of both is dead in the water but I would consider both to be art forms rather than industrial processes (though the actual mechanism of bringing the art form to a state where it can be viewed is an industrial process).


geraldkrug
Tue, 24/01/06@20:05

What if software is made patentable?

Do we all go rushing to the corner patent lawyer
and spend 10,000+ and then must quickly produce a product or lose the patent rights?

Do copyright holders have "first come, first serve" priority to patent their software?

Patents give companies legal monopolies but will we have more illegal monopoly practices that gouge the public wallet and ignore small business?

Do we need a new way to deal with IP world wide?


DieSse
Tue, 24/01/06@22:29

IMHO legal monopolies for copyright and patents are fine - as long as they don't last too long, and as long as DRM is freed up somewhat.

Not too long - 10 years perhaps?

That gives plenty of time to exploit the novelty of any creative work, and create something anew. I don't think IP rights holders should have a monopoly income on their creation for ever - any more than the rest of us should get paid for ever if we perform a job of work.


wee eddie
Wed, 25/01/06@00:44

DieSse - Part of the problem is Drug development

It can take from 8 to 15 years to get a new drug from conception to market. All that has to be paid for out of the next 10 to 15 years profits.

If the Drug Companies do not get a sufficient period of protection, they will not bother to go through the rigorous testing procedures that we require for our safety.


DieSse
Wed, 25/01/06@01:04

No probs - patents might be longer. My comments were really aimed at copyrights - I should have made that clear.

As comments

*they will not bother to go through the rigorous testing procedures that we require for our safety.* - they have no choice on this.

I think you'll find companies R&D is paid from current income, not future profits.


Forum Editor
Wed, 25/01/06@08:36

10 year copyrights?

Never.

Authors commonly spend two or three years researching and writing a book, and if copyright was subsequently limited to ten years many of them wouldn't bother - the potential reward might not be worth the time and effort. The same thing applies to films. You have to be realistic about this, and understand that creative people don't all have lives of unparalleled luxury, legions of them spend their working lives making very little money, and they rely on a drip-feed of copyright fees to keep them going. I know several people in this situation. We hear about the tiny number that have massive success, and become wealthy quite rapidly, but no sensible person would dream of limiting copyright terms for the many, based on the success of a few.

Much the same thing applies to patent rights, and again there are many inventors who struggle to make a living, hoping for that one successful patent that will pay back for all the non-starters. Medical research, as highlighted by wee eddie, is a very good example of this. Modern drug research programs can go on for years and years - often for more than a decade - and the drug companies rely on a fair patent right on successful products in order to fund more research. Shorten the term and you would find that many projects simply wouldn't happen. As wee eddie rightly says, the companies just wouldn't bother, they would stick to the racing certainties, to the ultimate detriment of us all.


geraldkrug
Wed, 25/01/06@18:32

job creation

Remember when a product goes to market it is creating lots of side bar jobs so when you think of a person getting paid forever on just one "Work" remember this kind of "Work" is one that causes a Giant undertaking to accomplish and needs to pay alot of workers.

[baswwe]

One more male out of the Gene Pool

They aren't getting any action!

[quasarstrider]

Yeah, I guess he gets no action

He is married.