Note:Updated to include lock-in and tying. Some changes on moral rights to clarify that
Laws are more often than not an annoyance, despite their aim to improve the legal framework in any given field. Free Software (AKA "Open Source") has thrived despite the absence of any legal recognition by the law, if not in spite of rules that clearly are shaped around proprietary software. In many jurisdictions it has passed the enforceability test. So, no laws seem necessary to make it work. Yet, can some legal principle be put forward, and included in some laws, to help?
"If it works don't fix it", so goes the common saying. But if it works now doesn't mean it will work forever. It is nevertheless upon lawyers, and legislators alike, to foresee problems ahead of their actual happening, and brace for the potential harmful event. But any laws that would regulate Free Software would likely harm some parts of it, and change the games to favor one kind over another, or impose conditions that are not welcome or productive – something that legislator, even with the best intentions, often do – and in general could cause as many troubles as they would produce benefit. "Primum non nocere" is the paradigm for medical actions, even though drugs by definition only produce a net benefit by inflicting some limited damage. Is there a medicament that has entirely good effects without any negative ones? Arguably there is not. But with laws we can achieve something closer to this optimal benefit, which economists know as "Pareto Efficiency".
So this is a call for Pareto Efficient Laws, and Pareto optimal only laws.
Recently the Koss (Korean Open Source Software) group has organized the first Korean Free Software conference in Seoul, in cooperation with NIPA, the governmental agency for the promotion of Information Technology industry. FSFE contributed to the organization and I, as well as a few other people, have been invited to present our views at the conference.
My speech started like "I knew I should not come to teach, but to learn, and indeed my anticipation was correct". Korea seems to have a lot to teach us. They are coming from behind, but have covered great length, and show some impressive numbers of adoption. At least they have a strategy and an agenda by which public authorities shall adopt Free Software.
On November 17 I will fly over to Korea to attend and speak at what seems the largest Free Software event so far in the country, under the auspices of the Korean Government, through the National IT Industry Promotion Agency (NIPA), and with the sponsoring also of the FSFE.
This morning I have read this article on Tech Crunch mentioning that – great news – one of the senior executives of Google has finally said it loud what we have thought for years: [most] software patents are detrimental to innovation. Only, he falls short of the point, because he asks for a "real patent reform," whereas the only suitable reform is a software patent abolition (if not an entire patent system abolition, but that is another discussion). All software patents are detrimental to innovation. Period.
But software patents are also detrimental to competition. Especially if they are used in an anticompetitive way. The Microsoft case, once again, gives us good food for thought and leads me to think that there is more than one antitrust concern over the sale of Nortel patents. May I attempt a few short answers to reasonable questions that are lingering around when I mention the antitrust issue. I plead guilty of omitting much of the necessary background.
Karsten Gerloff, President of the Free Software Foundation Europe, publishes a blog post on the hearing in the Microsoft v Commission case (T-167/08) dealing with the 899 million euro fine for failing to offer reasonable and non discriminatory condition for revealing secret interoperability information, AKA the "no patent" agreement that the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation has subsequently negotiated to provide same information to Samba Team and others. The article is offered under the condition "Creative Commons Attribution" (CC-BY)
A few minutes ago, Oracle has announced that Openoffice.org, the ODF-based Free Software suite for office productivity, will become a community developed project. In plain English, no more dual licensing, no more proprietary version, go ahead to incoming patches. Woot!
I am very happy to hear about this move, which was not entirely unexpected (by me, at least). To tell all the truth, reaching this point was my secret plan when I have started helping Oracle in the merger control procedure opened by the European Commission last year, where the acquisition of Sun was under scrutiny. I was telling everybody that the dual licensing approach was going to die, that id did not make much sense anymore, that it was "moot" – I actually mentioned MySQL there, but the same applies to Openoffice.org, actually. As it turns out, I was right.
Un nuovo numero della International Free and Open Source Software Law Review è stato pubblicato. Questo numero contiene, tra gli altri, un interessante articolo del mio amico Maurits Dolmans circa l'interazione tra i brevetti e gli standard, con un appello per gli Open Standards. Merita assoultamente di essere letto. Altrettanto notevole è un'introduzione a un documento che cerca di chiarire come le varie modalità di linking e altre interazioni tra software di differente provenienza possa funzionare – o non funzionare – in ambito copyleft, di Malcolm Bain.
Altre questioni "calde" coperte sono la brevettazione di software in Europa, di Noam Shemtov, e un articolo sul progetto, in qualche modo controverso, chiamato Project Harmony. Il suo scopo e funzionamento viene spiegato dall'Avvocato Amanda Brock. Per coloro che si interessanto di gare pubbliche, l'articolo di Mathieu Paapst spiega alcuni aspetti delle azioni agevolatrici in favore dell'open source, principalmente da un punto di vista economico, il che fa da appropriato complemento al mio articolo contenuto nel precedente numero. Coloro che amano leggere autori controversi, avranno piacere nel dissentire dall'articolo-piattaforma di Matt Asay.
Un nuovo numero della 