From a1bigun at aol.com  Mon Mar  3 01:59:37 2003
From: a1bigun at aol.com (Jenifer Nadeau)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 03 01:59:37 GMT
Subject: children beat
Message-ID: <LLFLZNDATKGHHZGVVMJWKMPNAIYRDU@98.196.214.44>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20030303/a79eb306/attachment.html>

From a.dfbfece at 1stopdeals.com  Tue Mar  4 06:15:37 2003
From: a.dfbfece at 1stopdeals.com (Open)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:15:37 -0800
Subject: Blue for Business from American Express
Message-ID: <200303040616.h246G0cK020617@crosspoint.fsfeurope.org>

Blue for Business will help you take your business where you want to go - Forward >>>

* No annual fee with a credit line of up to $50,000

* Payment flexibility - Pay over time or in full

* Low introductory APR - Save with a low 2.9% introductory APR on purchases and balance transfers durng your first 6 months of Cardmembership

http://www.1stopdeals.com/clk1.asp?711102-1165-35154240047







To remove yourself from this list, please click here:
http://www.1stopdeals.com/r2.asp?t=bg&i=35154240047 
AOL: <A HREF="http://www.1stopdeals.com/r2.asp?t=bg&i=35154240047">Click here</A>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20030303/b050232a/attachment.html>

From seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org  Sat Mar  1 20:46:12 2003
From: seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 15:46:12 -0500
Subject: European SW Patent Directive Vote Schedule
Message-ID: <3E611C14.FA2F47F2@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


(From Patents at aful.org list.  This is this Thursday.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Patents] swpat directive voted 29.4.2003
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 21:06:28 +0100
From: Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis at tinet.org>
To: patents at aful.org

New dates appeared at the procedure page for the swpat
directive 

PE - Forthcoming adoption by parliamentary
committee:29/04/2003
PE - Probable part-session by the DGI:02/06/2003
PE - Probable part-session: DGII coordination:02/06/2003

I'm not sure of what part-sessions mean (maybe vote in
plenary????)

http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/oeil/oeil_ViewDNL.ProcViewByNum?lang=2&procnum=COD/2002/0047

-- 
Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis at tinet.org


From alet at librelogiciel.com  Tue Mar  4 09:55:06 2003
From: alet at librelogiciel.com (Jerome Alet)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:55:06 +0100
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
Message-ID: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>

Hi,

For those of you who might be interested, wrt my post in :

  http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2003-February/003775.html
  
As an experiment, I've implemented such a (somewhat modified) 
distribution scheme for a project of mine, PyKota (print quota 
solution for CUPS), as described on : 

  http://www.librelogiciel.com/software/PyKota/Download/action_Download
  
The interesting thing is that it seems to work. 

Considering that the project begins, that it has no real 
documentation yet (command line help excepted), and that the public 
is small (I think), I can say that (to my great surprise) in 15 days 
I've already got one person who paid for the tarball, and several 
others who will push for the person in charge (with money) to pay. 

Out of the persons who told me they will certainely pay, one 
excepted, they've already downloaded and used the CVS version. 
(of course I know not all will pay)
  
I thought this may be of some interest to the readers of this list.

Could this be an ethically correct solution to make "some" money out 
of Free Software ? 

Comments, especially about the "ethically correct" part, are more 
than welcome. 

Jerome Alet

From guerby at acm.org  Tue Mar  4 11:31:09 2003
From: guerby at acm.org (Laurent Guerby)
Date: 04 Mar 2003 12:31:09 +0100
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
Message-ID: <1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 10:55, Jerome Alet wrote:
>   
> As an experiment, I've implemented such a (somewhat modified) 
> distribution scheme for a project of mine, PyKota (print quota 
> solution for CUPS), as described on : 
> 
>   http://www.librelogiciel.com/software/PyKota/Download/action_Download
>   

For branding your support / download service, the best way to do it
register a Trademark on "Official PyKota", and let people know
that "anything Pykota" is fine to use by everyone else.

Then even an evil foe can't use your branding name (you can sue)
and if people start using "hacked Pykota" for releasing something
and you know about it and, as announced, do nothing on the legal side,
after a while you can't sue them (unless they go back to Official Pykota
name), so everything should work neatly on the legal side.
I'm not sure adding things to the license is the best way to do it,
the GPL looks like it prohibits further restrictions.

I'm not a lawyer, may be FSF people can comment on it.

Note that(s I believe the scheme Ada Core Technologies is following with
the Ada frontend to GCC which is called GNAT, the brand their release
and service under names like "GNAT Pro" or "GNAT High Integrety
Edition", etc...

Sincerely,

-- 
Laurent Guerby <guerby at acm.org>


From akf1 at AKFoerster.de  Tue Mar  4 12:01:09 2003
From: akf1 at AKFoerster.de (Andreas K. Foerster)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:01:09 +0100
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
Message-ID: <20030304120109.GA746@Castrophe>

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:55:06AM +0100, Jerome Alet wrote:

>   http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2003-February/003775.html
>   
> As an experiment, I've implemented such a (somewhat modified) 
> distribution scheme for a project of mine, 

I don't see anything that is different.

The GPL explicitly allows charging for distributing software:
| You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
| you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
(section 1)

So, what's different?

-- 
Tschuess
	Andreas

From alet at librelogiciel.com  Tue Mar  4 12:09:28 2003
From: alet at librelogiciel.com (Jerome Alet)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:09:28 +0100
Subject: [jerome: Re: my distribution scheme for GPLed software]
Message-ID: <20030304120927.GA3487@mail.librelogiciel.com>

CC, sorry.

bye,

Jerome Alet
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: unknown sender
Subject: Re: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:08:53 +0100
Size: 1036
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20030304/8d20b3af/attachment.mht>

From ciaran at member.fsf.org  Tue Mar  4 12:18:02 2003
From: ciaran at member.fsf.org (Ciaran O'Riordan)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:18:02 +0000
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>

I don't see any GPL violations but I don't think this experiment
will work.

The "Official Version" idea is a trademarks issue, not a copyright
issue so the GPL doesn't cover it.

The Abisource developers use a similar idea, "Abiword" is
their trademark, it is the name (or mark) of the program
*as they distribute it*, if you alter the source and recompile, you
have to call it a different name (they suggest "Abiword Personal").

The charging for downloads is ok too.  If the program was compilable,
binary downloads would not be required.

The reason I don't think this will work is on accout of it's hairyness.
I also think it goes against the some of the technical benefits of
Free software.

It adds hassle to aquiring a current copy of the source, and creates
a financial disincentive to upgrading (the user would have to pay
again (at some point)).

Something rms says may apply here, this distribution method creates
and artificial block to getting the software, artificial since it
is not part of developing or using the software and is not a
required part of passing the software on to others.  This takes
away from the net value of the software.

He goes on to give the example of motorways, if a tool booth
was placed half way between each junction, a very fair way to
get drivers to pay for roads would emerge, but the roads system
as a whole would be devalued since an artificial hassle has been
added.  Roads should be charged for in a less invasive, equally
accurate way such as taxing petrol.

His advice for how individuals can make money from Free software
is a little thinner, it seems to boil down to charging for
giving tutorials, charging for adding features etc., and charging
for support.  (i.e. charge for you time (which is limited), not
for copies (which require no resources)).

I'm not a lawyer either, and I'm not an FSF staff member, but I
hope this helps anyway.


On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:31:09PM +0100, Laurent Guerby wrote:
> I'm not sure adding things to the license is the best way to do it,
> the GPL looks like it prohibits further restrictions.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, may be FSF people can comment on it.

From home at alexhudson.com  Tue Mar  4 12:43:48 2003
From: home at alexhudson.com (Alex Hudson)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:43:48 +0000
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
Message-ID: <20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:18:02PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> I don't see any GPL violations but I don't think this experiment
> will work.

Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"? Although an author
cannot really violate the license on his own work :)

> The "Official Version" idea is a trademarks issue, not a copyright
> issue so the GPL doesn't cover it.

The GPL probably ought to address it though, in much the same way that it
addresses the matter of software patents. A trademark can be used to make
a piece of software effectively non-free: if a trademark prevents you
copying a piece of software, then you end up in with the problem people
who want to distribute RedHat have.

> The reason I don't think this will work is on accout of it's hairyness.
> I also think it goes against the some of the technical benefits of
> Free software.

I agree with this. I would propose a slightly different solution:

- people register to receive an official code
- code allows people to access (for example) technical support on the
website, etc., and possibly could be used to tie the extra services you
offer into the software itself

You don't force people to register, you distribute the same version of the
code all the time, and you give benefits to those people who do pay you
for your work. Tieing those benefits into the software is a nice touch, 
I think - like issueing automatic notices of security fixes, etc. 

I don't think you need to resort to trademarks to do this, which I think
is slightly dodgy anyway. I don't think that there's anything wrong with
providing benefits to your users via free software though - so long as you
aren't required to sign up for a subscription, so long as it's optional, I
think that's okay. In a way, it's a bit about building up relationships
with your customers, I guess.

Cheers,

Alex.


From akf1 at AKFoerster.de  Tue Mar  4 12:01:09 2003
From: akf1 at AKFoerster.de (Andreas K. Foerster)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:01:09 +0100
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
Message-ID: <20030304120109.GA746@Castrophe>

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:55:06AM +0100, Jerome Alet wrote:

>   http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2003-February/003775.html
>   
> As an experiment, I've implemented such a (somewhat modified) 
> distribution scheme for a project of mine, 

I don't see anything that is different.

The GPL explicitly allows charging for distributing software:
| You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
| you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
(section 1)

So, what's different?

-- 
Tschuess
	Andreas

From alet at librelogiciel.com  Tue Mar  4 12:51:21 2003
From: alet at librelogiciel.com (Jerome Alet)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:51:21 +0100
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
Message-ID: <20030304125121.GA3524@mail.librelogiciel.com>

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:18:02PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> 
> The reason I don't think this will work is on accout of it's hairyness.
> I also think it goes against the some of the technical benefits of
> Free software.
> 
> It adds hassle to aquiring a current copy of the source, and creates
> a financial disincentive to upgrading (the user would have to pay
> again (at some point)).

no : the CVS version will always be available.

it only adds hassle to get an "old" copy of the source, because the
CVS version is always the latest one.

but either people learn how to use CVS, or they have to pay for
the tarball (or them not willing to learn)

> He goes on to give the example of motorways, if a tool booth
> was placed half way between each junction, a very fair way to
> get drivers to pay for roads would emerge, but the roads system
> as a whole would be devalued since an artificial hassle has been
> added.  Roads should be charged for in a less invasive, equally
> accurate way such as taxing petrol.

Here there are two roads, and only one has a toll booth, the other
one is toll free.

I think this scheme is very similar to French highways : you must 
pay to drive on them or you can drive on the smaller "national" road 
at its side for free. The 2 or maybe 3 French highways which are 
free, are free because there's no "national" road at their side 
(e.g. from Clermont-Ferrand to Montpellier, for those who know 
France) 

Thanks a lot for your comments anyway.

Jerome Alet

From ciaran at member.fsf.org  Tue Mar  4 13:00:04 2003
From: ciaran at member.fsf.org (Ciaran O'Riordan)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:00:04 +0000
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
	<20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
Message-ID: <20030304130004.GA13974@chewie.compsoc.com>

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:43:48PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:18:02PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> > I don't see any GPL violations
> 
> Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"?

Nope.  Copyright, patent, and tradmarks are all separate issues.
Grouping them together (and calling them "Intelectual Property issues")
will lead anyone to incorrect conclusions.  Releasing a work under the
GNU GPL doesn't permit someone else to call it "Microsoft Windows XP",
that's a trademark of microsoft corporation.  I don't think trademarks
are a bad thing either, they allow people/companies to have an identity.
I'm glad Microsoft can't use the Debian logo for software they write.

> The GPL probably ought to address it though [...] A trademark can be
> used to make a piece of software effectively non-free: if a trademark
> prevents you copying a piece of software [...]

This is what happens when one lumps together separate issues.  Trademarks
can never prevent you from copying a piece of software.  Copying is
covered my copyright laws.  Trademark laws ban people from using names
and logos of other people/corporation to identify there work. (i.e. I
can open a low quality burger outlet, but I can't call it "McDonalds")
(...and microsoft can't open an office and call it "Free Software Foundation")

> > The reason I don't think this will work is on account of it's hairyness.
> 
> I agree with this. I would propose a slightly different solution:
[...]

I'd mostly agree with your solution (people register for support and
email update services etc.).

I don't see a benefit in coupling support with permission to download
official source, most people get their software from distos anyway.
This is even more true of companies (the market one should really aim
for if you want to make a living off Free software).

Ciaran O'Riordan

From alet at librelogiciel.com  Tue Mar  4 13:12:11 2003
From: alet at librelogiciel.com (Jerome Alet)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:12:11 +0100
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304130004.GA13974@chewie.compsoc.com>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
	<20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
	<20030304130004.GA13974@chewie.compsoc.com>
Message-ID: <20030304131210.GA4140@mail.librelogiciel.com>

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:00:04PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> (...and microsoft can't open an office and call it "Free Software Foundation")

nor OpenOffice ;-)

bye,

Jerome Alet

From akf1 at AKFoerster.de  Tue Mar  4 13:26:55 2003
From: akf1 at AKFoerster.de (Andreas K. Foerster)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:26:55 +0100
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
	<20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
Message-ID: <20030304132655.GA407@Castrophe>

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:43:48PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:

> > The "Official Version" idea is a trademarks issue, not a copyright
> > issue so the GPL doesn't cover it.
> 
> The GPL probably ought to address it though, in much the same way that it
> addresses the matter of software patents. A trademark can be used to make
> a piece of software effectively non-free: if a trademark prevents you
> copying a piece of software, then you end up in with the problem people
> who want to distribute RedHat have.

A trademark cannot prevent from copying the software, just from using
the name. That's why for example "liniso.de" has this strange 
distribution named "green shoe". So just forget about your red hat and
wear your green shoe. ;-)

BTW. isn't also "Linux" a trademark?

-- 
Tschuess
	Andreas

From 1999s079 at educ.disi.unige.it  Tue Mar  4 13:17:41 2003
From: 1999s079 at educ.disi.unige.it (Paolo Gianrossi)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:17:41 +0100
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
	<20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
Message-ID: <15972.42869.226383.740992@elephant.gnu.disi.unige.it>

Alex Hudson writes:
 > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:18:02PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
 > > I don't see any GPL violations but I don't think this experiment
 > > will work.
 > 
 > Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"? Although an author
 > cannot really violate the license on his own work :)

Well, i'm not a lawyer as well, but i think it's a meta-problem: you
wouldn't violate YOUR software license, but you would violate the GPL
itself: you want to use a "modified version" of the GPL, and this 
modification is a violation.

The GPL comes under the GPL... The goal of it is to make it impossible to
limit liberties... What you do (on naming) is to change the license in
order to limit a liberty: the freedom to rename or to use the name. Thus, i
think this would be a meta-violation.

Just my .2$

cheers
paolino

-- 
... Observe Good Faith and Justice Toward All Nations, Cultivate Peace
and Harmony With All --George Washington's Farewell Address. 
-      	       	       	     
Paolo Gianrossi		     
paolino at member.fsf.org
paolino at linux.it   
linsky at wappi.com  
			     	       		     
Member of the GNU at DISI project.	      		     
Students Representative @ DISI, University of Genoa (ITALY)


From home at alexhudson.com  Tue Mar  4 13:28:29 2003
From: home at alexhudson.com (Alex Hudson)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:28:29 +0000
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304130004.GA13974@chewie.compsoc.com>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
	<20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
	<20030304130004.GA13974@chewie.compsoc.com>
Message-ID: <20030304132829.GA32589@rendezvous.alexworld>

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:00:04PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:43:48PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:18:02PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> > > I don't see any GPL violations
> > 
> > Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"?
> 
> Nope.  Copyright, patent, and tradmarks are all separate issues.
> Grouping them together (and calling them "Intelectual Property issues")
> will lead anyone to incorrect conclusions.

Sorry, I think you've really missed my point. I didn't conflate the naming
issue into "intellectual property" - I don't know where you got that from.

What I am talking about is specifically this: the software is under the
GPL, but if you download it you are not allowed to redistribute it under
a certain name. I think this contradicts GPL.6:

"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of
the rights granted herein."

It sounds to me like a further restriction - that is the point I was making.

> > The GPL probably ought to address it though [...] A trademark can be
> > used to make a piece of software effectively non-free: if a trademark
> > prevents you copying a piece of software [...]
> 
> This is what happens when one lumps together separate issues.

So how is what I said different from:

(...) wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will
individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be
licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."

This isn't "lumping together separate issues". This is addressing issues
which can cause GPL'd software to be effectively non-free. I personally
think trademarks can also be used to restrict the freedom of the user of
GPL'd software, feel free to disagree. This isn't "IP" conflation.

> Trademarks
> can never prevent you from copying a piece of software.

RedHat disagree with you: 
http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/

> Trademark laws ban people from using names
> and logos of other people/corporation to identify there work.

But if the trademark is used within a piece of software, then that software
has to be redistributed according to the wishes of the owner of the 
trademark until it is removed (if removal is possible). 

"You may not name or brand your product "Red Hat," or use the Red Hat
trademarks in any way, either on your product or in related advertising."

So if you copy a version of RedHat for a friend, you're not allowed to write
"RedHat" on it anywhere. Linux Emporium and CheepLinux in the UK think this
is a problem - CheepLinux rebrand all the RedHat they sell as "Cheeplinux
GPL", Linux Emporium don't even seem to stock it at all now. That prevents
people copying free software.

> I'd mostly agree with your solution (people register for support and
> email update services etc.).
> 
> I don't see a benefit in coupling support with permission to download
> official source, most people get their software from distos anyway.
> This is even more true of companies (the market one should really aim
> for if you want to make a living off Free software).

I definitely agree with that sentiment, I'm not sure how successful it would
be. But, I suppose we'll see!

Cheers,

Alex.


From rudy at zeus.rug.ac.be  Tue Mar  4 13:37:17 2003
From: rudy at zeus.rug.ac.be (Rudy Gevaert)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:37:17 +0100
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <15972.42869.226383.740992@elephant.gnu.disi.unige.it>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
	<20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
	<15972.42869.226383.740992@elephant.gnu.disi.unige.it>
Message-ID: <20030304133717.GA16041@zeus.rug.ac.be>

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:17:41PM +0100, Paolo Gianrossi wrote:
> The GPL comes under the GPL... The goal of it is to make it impossible to

I do think this is incorrect.  It is copyrighted by the FSF:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

   Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.


-- 
Rudy Gevaert                rudy at gnu.org rudy at zeus.rug.ac.be
Web page                    http://www.webworm.org
GNU/Linux for schools       http://www.nongnu.org/glms
Savannah hacker             http://savannah.gnu.org

  I would have made a good Pope. 
   - Richard M. Nixon (1913-1994)

From contact at guillaumeponce.org  Tue Mar  4 14:05:13 2003
From: contact at guillaumeponce.org (Guillaume Ponce)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:05:13 +0100 (CET)
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
Message-ID: <1046786713.3e64b299b52da@imp.free.fr>

> His [RMS] advice for how individuals can make money from Free
> software is a little thinner, it seems to boil down to charging for
> giving tutorials, charging for adding features etc., and charging
> for support.  (i.e. charge for you time (which is limited), not for
> copies (which require no resources)).

Do you have pointers on actual RMS wording?


Earning a living from free software development is still a problem.

Charging for your time rather than for copies.  That is THE point to
make the free software viable as a mean for a developper to earn his
living without being as unfair as proprietary vendors can be.

It is fair to charge users for your actual work (how much time you
spent), not for how_much_they_use_your_work like the "intellectual
property" way to earn a living from developping software suggests.

If a developer had a mean to get paid for the time he spent (not more
and not less) it would be viable to be professional free software
developers, and not a hobbyist like Bill Gates called free software
developers in his `open letter to hobbyists'.  A developper may earn
is living, but not get that rich (by missappropriating a part of the
customers' resources), which is fair for him and for the society.

But by charging for giving tutorials, adding features or giving
support, you only charge for your *extra* time.  You can do so only if
you have already spent a lot of time for free (as in beer) on the
piece of software.  What we lack is a mean of getting paid for the
time actually spent on the basic software itself.

You cannot do that by charging users.  To do so you would have to:

    * Make your users register so they can use the software.  That is
      not free software anymore.

    or

    * Know in advance the exact number of users that will use your
      software, impossible.  And you would still charge for copies.


The only way to do so seems to be by external funding and sponsoring
-- and better by public or non-profit organisations.  Any other idea
to get companies involved in the funding of free software whereas they
may think that they should not fund software that their competitors
will eventually use (as they will be free to do so)?

But the final truth might be somewhat cruel for developpers who want
to earn their living by writing free software.  Using, studying,
modifying and distributing software should be inalienable freedoms.
But getting paid enough to earn one's living cannot be such a freedom,
as making software is such a funny thing that there will always be
people to do it in their spare time even if they get no money for
that.


--
Guillaume Ponce
http://www.guillaumeponce.org/

From alet at librelogiciel.com  Tue Mar  4 14:34:33 2003
From: alet at librelogiciel.com (Jerome Alet)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:34:33 +0100
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <15972.42869.226383.740992@elephant.gnu.disi.unige.it>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
	<20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
	<15972.42869.226383.740992@elephant.gnu.disi.unige.it>
Message-ID: <20030304143432.GE4140@mail.librelogiciel.com>

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:17:41PM +0100, Paolo Gianrossi wrote:
> Alex Hudson writes:
>
>  > Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"? Although an author
>  > cannot really violate the license on his own work :)
> 
> Well, i'm not a lawyer as well, but i think it's a meta-problem: you
> wouldn't violate YOUR software license, but you would violate the GPL
> itself: you want to use a "modified version" of the GPL, and this 
> modification is a violation.

I think Alex and You found a weak point with my current position.

So I wondered : what about the package tarball filename ?
Seems like a complete distribution name but at a different scale.

Is the package filename part of the "source" code or not, or in 
other terms is the filename under which the package is redistributed 
(tarball) covered by the GNU GPL ? 

Can I impose restrictions on the package file name, while still 
allowing to modify the version number (and the rest of the source) 
in any way the user see fit ? 

I think obtaining a trademark on the package name itself is probably 
the solution here (not that I'd like to do that, actually), like say I 
obtain a trademark on "PyKota-Official" and distribute official 
packages as PyKota-Official-x.xx.tar.gz. Then I allow people to use 
the trademark only for "unmodified" official packages, while still 
allowing them to do whatever they like with the source. 

Not sure if this makes sense at all, it seems to be what RH does,
and I'm really not fond of this.

I'd just want to find a "correct-both-ways" path to do things.

It's time for me to rethink about the problem, it seems...

Thanks to all.

bye,

Jerome Alet

From simo.sorce at xsec.it  Tue Mar  4 14:52:12 2003
From: simo.sorce at xsec.it (Simo Sorce)
Date: 04 Mar 2003 15:52:12 +0100
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304143432.GE4140@mail.librelogiciel.com>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	 <1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
	 <20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
	 <15972.42869.226383.740992@elephant.gnu.disi.unige.it>
	 <20030304143432.GE4140@mail.librelogiciel.com>
Message-ID: <1046789532.2152.214.camel@localhost>


I do not think that Trademark really collide with the GPL.
If you permit redistribution of the "original" source under the same
name and only ask politely to change name for modifyed packages.

However to avoid any possible problem I would say that you may issue a
Trademark on the Distribution, not the software itself.

Protecting the tarball name seem a really silly action to me, it would
make you impossible to easily upgrade distro's.

Instead getting a Register Mark on the name PyKota and a Trademark on
Pykota Official Distribution and pursuing the trademark on your boxes,
while giving to anyone the ability to name the software itself "PyKota"
or "PyKota whatever" would be a nice thing.

That way the software will suffer no problems while a whole distribution
(with printed manuals, software, medium, boxes, whatever) or simply an
"enriched" software package like the software + manuals + installation
tool would be under the name Pykota Official Distribution that you may
decide who have the ability to redistribute with that name.

Yes, that's exactly what RedHat does, but you do not have to be as
stringent as RedHat if you do not want to, but what matter, the software
will stay free.

I do not see this as a way to close down the software, the software will
be 100% free, but a way to give guarantees that the original author is
behind this distribution and have paid particular attention to it, or to
add value, like a real guarantee/assurance on software, installation
support services, whatever ...

Simo.

On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 15:34, Jerome Alet wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:17:41PM +0100, Paolo Gianrossi wrote:
> > Alex Hudson writes:
> >
> >  > Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"? Although an author
> >  > cannot really violate the license on his own work :)
> > 
> > Well, i'm not a lawyer as well, but i think it's a meta-problem: you
> > wouldn't violate YOUR software license, but you would violate the GPL
> > itself: you want to use a "modified version" of the GPL, and this 
> > modification is a violation.
> 
> I think Alex and You found a weak point with my current position.
> 
> So I wondered : what about the package tarball filename ?
> Seems like a complete distribution name but at a different scale.
> 
> Is the package filename part of the "source" code or not, or in 
> other terms is the filename under which the package is redistributed 
> (tarball) covered by the GNU GPL ? 
> 
> Can I impose restrictions on the package file name, while still 
> allowing to modify the version number (and the rest of the source) 
> in any way the user see fit ? 
> 
> I think obtaining a trademark on the package name itself is probably 
> the solution here (not that I'd like to do that, actually), like say I 
> obtain a trademark on "PyKota-Official" and distribute official 
> packages as PyKota-Official-x.xx.tar.gz. Then I allow people to use 
> the trademark only for "unmodified" official packages, while still 
> allowing them to do whatever they like with the source. 
> 
> Not sure if this makes sense at all, it seems to be what RH does,
> and I'm really not fond of this.
> 
> I'd just want to find a "correct-both-ways" path to do things.
> 
> It's time for me to rethink about the problem, it seems...
> 
> Thanks to all.
> 
> bye,
> 
> Jerome Alet
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce at xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l.
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20030304/5046b45e/attachment.sig>

From akf1 at AKFoerster.de  Tue Mar  4 15:35:01 2003
From: akf1 at AKFoerster.de (Andreas K. Foerster)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:35:01 +0100
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304132829.GA32589@rendezvous.alexworld>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
	<20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
	<20030304130004.GA13974@chewie.compsoc.com>
	<20030304132829.GA32589@rendezvous.alexworld>
Message-ID: <20030304153501.GA331@Castrophe>

X-Comment-To: Alex Hudson, Paolo Gianrossi

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:28:29PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:

> What I am talking about is specifically this: the software is under the
> GPL, but if you download it you are not allowed to redistribute it under
> a certain name. I think this contradicts GPL.6:
> 
> "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of
> the rights granted herein."
> 
> It sounds to me like a further restriction - that is the point I was making.

The GPL deals with the software, not with names.
The name isn't put under the GPL.

The GNU people themselves make such restrictions for modifying the GPL.
Have a look at this link:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

> > Trademarks
> > can never prevent you from copying a piece of software.
> 
> RedHat disagree with you: 
> http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/

I've read it, but I didn't find, where they disagree.
They allow copying the software under a different name.

> > Trademark laws ban people from using names
> > and logos of other people/corporation to identify there work.
> 
> But if the trademark is used within a piece of software, then that software
> has to be redistributed according to the wishes of the owner of the 
> trademark until it is removed (if removal is possible).

It would be a violation if removal wouldn't be possible.

> Linux Emporium don't even seem to stock it at all now. That prevents
> people copying free software.

Huh? Isn't the same software also available on other distributions?

P.S.:
The company doesn't want to be named. So don't give them any credit by
calling their name so often. Just forget their name. ;-)

-- 
Tschuess
	Andreas

From home at alexhudson.com  Tue Mar  4 15:50:02 2003
From: home at alexhudson.com (Alex Hudson)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:50:02 +0000
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304153501.GA331@Castrophe>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
	<20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
	<20030304130004.GA13974@chewie.compsoc.com>
	<20030304132829.GA32589@rendezvous.alexworld> <20030304153501.GA331@Castrophe>
Message-ID: <20030304155002.GA1489@rendezvous.alexworld>

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:35:01PM +0100, Andreas K. Foerster wrote:
> > "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of
> > the rights granted herein."
> > 
> > It sounds to me like a further restriction - that is the point I was making.
> 
> The GPL deals with the software, not with names.

But it also deals with things that affect the software. I'm saying that
having naming constraints affects the distribution of the software.

> The name isn't put under the GPL.

Yes, I agree with that. I'm not arguing about who has control over the name,
I'm talking about the effect of that control on copying the software.

> The GNU people themselves make such restrictions for modifying the GPL.
> Have a look at this link:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

Ah, but we already know the GPL is invariant, and not covered by itself :)
I think that's beside the point.

> > > Trademarks
> > > can never prevent you from copying a piece of software.
> > 
> > RedHat disagree with you: 
> > http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/
> 
> I've read it, but I didn't find, where they disagree.
> They allow copying the software under a different name.

>From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html, 

"A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you
should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications,
either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere."

If I have to modify a work - no matter how much work that actually is - then
I say that violates freedom 2. I would then say that it isn't consistent
with the GPL.

> It would be a violation if removal wouldn't be possible.

Agreed. But I also think it's a "violation" if removal is forced. (I think
probably "would be inconsistent" is a better phrase, violation sounds
quite harsh).

> > Linux Emporium don't even seem to stock it at all now. That prevents
> > people copying free software.
> 
> Huh? Isn't the same software also available on other distributions?

>From a quick scan they don't seem to stock it. Dunno :) Didn't look too hard!

> P.S.:
> The company doesn't want to be named. So don't give them any credit by
> calling their name so often. Just forget their name. ;-)

Agreed!!

Cheers,

Alex.



From ciaran at member.fsf.org  Tue Mar  4 16:02:29 2003
From: ciaran at member.fsf.org (Ciaran O'Riordan)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:02:29 +0000
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <20030304132829.GA32589@rendezvous.alexworld>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
	<20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
	<20030304130004.GA13974@chewie.compsoc.com>
	<20030304132829.GA32589@rendezvous.alexworld>
Message-ID: <20030304160229.GA21532@chewie.compsoc.com>

ahha.  I headn't heard about the RedHat case, it seems they do
disagree with me, and the confusion of copyright and trademarks is
their fault, not yours like I thought (apologies). Looks like RedHat
are stretching their interpretation of the law.

I suppose trademarks could impede Free software in other ways too:
One of the benefits of FS is that you can choose any company to
get support from, this would be quite a bit harder if companies
weren't alowed to mention that they support RedHat(tm).

I don't think RedHats' claims about their rights under trademark
laws would stand up in court.  Maybe they've caused themselves
some trouble by giving their company and there flagship product
the same name ;)

Most people can ignore this issue since most don't use RedHat
or whatever, but it's a useful discussion for sharing information
before a similar case that does affect us pops up.

Ciaran O'Riordan (who is dissapointed with RedHat)


On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:28:29PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:00:04PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:43:48PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:18:02PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> > > > I don't see any GPL violations
> > > 
> > > Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"?
> > 
> > Nope.  Copyright, patent, and tradmarks are all separate issues.
[...]

> RedHat disagree with you: 
> http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/

From info at componentsengine.com  Sat Mar  8 01:21:51 2003
From: info at componentsengine.com (info at componentsengine.com)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 01:21:51 -0000
Subject: The spare parts revolution
Message-ID: <012195121010833PROGETPLUS01@qwerty.it>

   

<http://www.componentsengine.com/site/page.wplus?ID_COUNT=home&LN=2&TRAC
K_ID=166146&PROM_ID=3_03>  
 
The spare parts revolution

The first appliance dedicated to all companies to meet the requirements
and the problems referring to the spare parts management.
With Components Engine you can publish and distribute your spares
catalogs over the web, cd-rom and on paper. You only need a click.


 
 
Some advantages



 Creation and sending of a clear, exact spare parts ordering, outrisk,
without any errors and undesired operation.


 Reduced searching times of component or product through official
channels catalog exploring or through product/component features. 


 Any management costs of paper supports and more up-to-date simplicity
and quickness of the catalogs.

 
Price

Components Engine starting from 750,00 Euro
<http://www.componentsengine.com/site/page.wplus?ID_COUNT=prezziedit&LN=
2&TRACK_ID=166146&PROM_ID=3_03> . 
 
Demo

Download the demo version of Edit Components Engine
<http://www.componentsengine.com/site/page.wplus?ID_COUNT=downedit&LN=2&
TRACK_ID=166146&PROM_ID=3_03> . 
 
componentsengine.com
<http://www.componentsengine.com/site/page.wplus?ID_COUNT=home&LN=2&TRAC
K_ID=166146&PROM_ID=3_03>  - info at componentsengine.com
<http://www.liame.it/mailto:info at componentsengine.com> 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20030308/9a39568f/attachment.html>

From imran at imran.info  Tue Mar 11 14:44:41 2003
From: imran at imran.info (Imran William Smith)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:44:41 +0800
Subject: Getting big mirrored data to low bandwidth people.
Message-ID: <3E6DF659.6020203@imran.info>

We are in the process of creating a mirror of some
open source / free software in Malaysia, since the
local mirror situation is not good.


Broadband rollout is currently low in Malaysia.  We
could help open source here by sending out CDs of the
key open source apps / distros / packages.  They'd
probably be sent free since we have some funds for Malaysian
open source development.  But we don't want to be taken
advantage of.  Also, we'd like to encourage the software
to spread further than just the people we send to.

My question:

Can anybody see some way of turning this into a pyramid?
I am thinking, maybe we could send 1 or 4 copies. If 4
copies, your name gets added to a database on the web,
and others near you can come and get the other 3 copies.
Something like that.

It could be heavily engineered (credits for helping out
on a web site, credits for sending copies to extra people,
debits when we send people CDs) or all based on trust.
Trust is probably better.  But we want to make sure that
the people who benefit are those who really don't have
the bandwidth, rather than somebody who has access to
the data in other channels but prefers us to send to them.
We also have to make totally sure that we are distributing
legally (for GPL, would we have to bundle source with
binary, or just make the URL for the source very clear
on the CD with the binary?)

Thanks for your thoughts....


Imran William Smith




-- 
www.AsiaOSC.org  | Asian Open Source Centre
www.mimos.my     | MIMOS Berhad, Malaysia



From discussion at fsfeurope.org  Wed Mar 12 08:50:43 2003
From: discussion at fsfeurope.org (discussion at fsfeurope.org)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:30:43 -080
Subject: Research Symbol SFCI
Message-ID: <200303131004.h2DA4DKW027964@crosspoint.fsfeurope.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20030312/2ccaafd6/attachment.html>

From brawer at acm.org  Fri Mar 14 03:09:49 2003
From: brawer at acm.org (Sascha Brawer)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 04:09:49 +0100
Subject: World Summit on the Information Society
Message-ID: <20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>

Hi all

It seems that the Free Software movement has well-informed allies in
rather unexpected areas.  At least to me, it was news that traditional
development-collaboration organizations are concerned about Information
Technology, to an extent that they are discussing software patents with
the Patent Office.  So, please let me describe an experience before I ask
a few questions.

Today, a number of Swiss non-governmental organizations met in Berne to
discuss WSIS, the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society
[1] whose first part will take place in Geneva in December 2003.  Most of
the audience was rather remote from computing: Besides Alex Schröder and
myself, who were both representing Wilhelm Tux [2], probably pretty much
everyone else was from a media, development, women's, human rights, ...
organization. Correspondingly, a big part of the discussion was about
topics like the digital divide, community radios, or oppression of
journalists -- all very important, but not immediately related to Free
Software.

However, the official position paper ('platform') of the Swiss NGOs [3]
does include short statements about Free Software and Intellectual
Property rights.  The symposium brochure contains several paragraphs
about these topics.  Actually, the organizers turned out to be quite
familiar with the goals of our movement.  For example, Chantal Peyer of
'Bread for All' [4], who co-organized the symposium, has read the GNU
philosophy pages and is well aware of the discussion around software
patents.  Chantal told me that their position on the patent system
actually is one of the areas where they got into a debate with the Swiss
administration, so they had discussions with a representative from the
patent office.

I was quite surprised and delighted to hear this, of course.  In my
humble opinion, the least we as proponents of Free Software should do is
to become more visible to these supporters of our goals.  While I
personally doubt that big-scale events like WSIS can have very concrete
effects, the world summit in December might be a good opportunity for
getting publicity and more supporters. So, I'd like to ask a few things:

* Does the FSF have any plans with regards to the WSIS summit in Geneva?
I've found a few postings on the Web containing both 'WSIS' and ('GNU' or
'FSF'), but nothing too concrete. The official list of WSIS participants
does not seem to include FSF.

* Are people at FSF Europe aware of WSIS? Did the country chapters
establish any contacts to the respective preparation groups in their
area? Maybe other groups will be surprised, too, to hear about unexpected
supporters of Free Software.

* Would it make sense to have more texts catering to NGOs, for instance
explaining why Free Software is good for developing countries?

* Another area where NGOs might become our ally is encryption: Why is it
that the likes of Amnesty International, Greenpeace etc. are not loud
voices in the discussion about outlawing cryptographic technology? After
all, one would presume that these people had an interest in crypto being
legal.

* Wilhelm Tux could officially sign the Swiss NGO position paper [3].

Personally, I wouldn't mind going to some preparatory meetings,
explaining the Free Software movement to NGO people, etc., but I'm sure
there are people around who are better suited for this.

I'd be sorry if all this was old news to everyone but me. I did try to
find information about FSF's participation at WSIS on the Web, but I had
no real success.  I think it would be quite awkward if such a big-scale
event about the "Information Society," which also is a chance to meet
many potential supporters, was without the presence of one of the most
important groups.

Best regards

-- Sascha Brawer, brawer at acm.org [5]
   Berne, Switzerland

[1] http://www.itu.int/wsis/
[2] Swiss Campaign for Free Software, http://wilhelmtux.ch/
[3] http://www.comunica-ch.net/ (cf. sections II.5 and II.6)
[4] Development NGO funded by Swiss protestant churches; http://www.ppp.ch/
[5] http://www.coli.uni-sb.de/~brawer/
    (I'm not there anymore and should have moved my page a long time ago..)




From fcouchet at april.org  Fri Mar 14 09:04:36 2003
From: fcouchet at april.org (Frederic Couchet)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:04:36 +0100
Subject: World Summit on the Information Society
In-Reply-To: <20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net> (Sascha
 Brawer's message of "Fri, 14 Mar 2003 04:09:49 +0100")
References: <20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
Message-ID: <87smtq1fq3.fsf@april.org>

>>>>> "Sascha" == Sascha Brawer <brawer at acm.org> writes:

    Sascha> * Are people at FSF Europe aware of WSIS? Did the country
    Sascha> chapters establish any contacts to the respective
    Sascha> preparation groups in their area? Maybe other groups will
    Sascha> be surprised, too, to hear about unexpected supporters of
    Sascha> Free Software.

In France, we are in close contact with the preparation groups. Some
of our ideas/propositions are in the documents of the last PrepCom.

Fred.
-- 
Petition contre les brevets logiciels      http://petition.eurolinux.org/
EUCD.INFO						http://eucd.info/
Frederic Couchet                     		      Tel: 06 60 68 89 31 
APRIL                                               http://www.april.org/

From xdrudis at tinet.org  Fri Mar 14 10:41:58 2003
From: xdrudis at tinet.org (xdrudis at tinet.org)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:41:58 +0100
Subject: World Summit on the Information Society
Message-ID: <1d4f3d1d2be9.1d2be91d4f3d@tinet.org>



> Hi all
> 
> It seems that the Free Software movement has well-informed allies in
> rather unexpected areas.  At least to me, it was news that traditional
> development-collaboration organizations are concerned about 
> InformationTechnology, to an extent that they are discussing 
> software patents with
> the Patent Office.  So, please let me describe an experience before 
> I ask
> a few questions.
>

>From what I've heard and my own little experience, talking with 
Patent Offices is a natural thing to do, but brings many little
results. They listen and ignore any amount of arguments,
wasting scarce time and delaying other actions. In fact they 
are hardly in a position to improve the system, given their
constraints and incentives.They seem to ignore the patent system
is in a suicide race and it may be wiser for them in the long 
term to help reform it.

Conctacting legislators (voted politicians) is usually more productive.
In fact, the Culture Committe opinion on the swpat directive does 
contain a paragrpah complaining of world inequality in patent property
(97% / 3%).

http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20030219/487019en.pdf

> I'd be sorry if all this was old news to everyone but me. I did try to
> find information about FSF's participation at WSIS on the Web, but 
> I had
> no real success.  I think it would be quite awkward if such a big-
> scaleevent about the "Information Society," which also is a chance 
> to meet
> many potential supporters, was without the presence of one of the most
> important groups.
>

At least I wasn't aware so thanks for posting.



From claude.almansi at bluewin.ch  Fri Mar 14 13:28:25 2003
From: claude.almansi at bluewin.ch (Claude Almansi)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:28:25 +0100
Subject: [wilhelmtux-discussion] World Summit on the Information Society
In-Reply-To: <20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
Message-ID: <000301c2ea2d$984100e0$0100a8c0@nom00cl76thy97>

Hi Sascha,

I was at PrepCom2 for the WSIS in Geneva in February. Both from the
round tables and from talking informally to participants, from Africa in
particular, I got the impression that the so called "Less Developed
Countries", to use the WSIS phrase, are far more aware of the benefits
of Free Software, and far better informed about it than European
Countries - be it at Civil Society's or at government's level. 

While computer literacy is indeed a boost to economic development, one
shouldn't confuse economic deprivation with computer illiteracy. In that
latter respect, many European governments are far worse off than their
Southern counterparts.

All the best

Claude

-----Message d'origine-----
De : wilhelmtux-discussion-bounces at wilhelmtux.ch
[mailto:wilhelmtux-discussion-bounces at wilhelmtux.ch] De la part de
Sascha Brawer
Envoyé : vendredi 14 mars 2003 04:10
À : discussion at fsfeurope.org; Wilhelm Tux; gnu at gnu.org;
team at fsfeurope.org
Cc : Chantal Peyer; Loic Dachary
Objet : [wilhelmtux-discussion] World Summit on the Information Society


Hi all

It seems that the Free Software movement has well-informed allies in
rather unexpected areas.  At least to me, it was news that traditional
development-collaboration organizations are concerned about Information
Technology, to an extent that they are discussing software patents with
the Patent Office.  So, please let me describe an experience before I
ask a few questions.

Today, a number of Swiss non-governmental organizations met in Berne to
discuss WSIS, the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society
[1] whose first part will take place in Geneva in December 2003.  Most
of the audience was rather remote from computing: Besides Alex Schröder
and myself, who were both representing Wilhelm Tux [2], probably pretty
much everyone else was from a media, development, women's, human rights,
... organization. Correspondingly, a big part of the discussion was
about topics like the digital divide, community radios, or oppression of
journalists -- all very important, but not immediately related to Free
Software.

However, the official position paper ('platform') of the Swiss NGOs [3]
does include short statements about Free Software and Intellectual
Property rights.  The symposium brochure contains several paragraphs
about these topics.  Actually, the organizers turned out to be quite
familiar with the goals of our movement.  For example, Chantal Peyer of
'Bread for All' [4], who co-organized the symposium, has read the GNU
philosophy pages and is well aware of the discussion around software
patents.  Chantal told me that their position on the patent system
actually is one of the areas where they got into a debate with the Swiss
administration, so they had discussions with a representative from the
patent office.

I was quite surprised and delighted to hear this, of course.  In my
humble opinion, the least we as proponents of Free Software should do is
to become more visible to these supporters of our goals.  While I
personally doubt that big-scale events like WSIS can have very concrete
effects, the world summit in December might be a good opportunity for
getting publicity and more supporters. So, I'd like to ask a few things:

* Does the FSF have any plans with regards to the WSIS summit in Geneva?
I've found a few postings on the Web containing both 'WSIS' and ('GNU'
or 'FSF'), but nothing too concrete. The official list of WSIS
participants does not seem to include FSF.

* Are people at FSF Europe aware of WSIS? Did the country chapters
establish any contacts to the respective preparation groups in their
area? Maybe other groups will be surprised, too, to hear about
unexpected supporters of Free Software.

* Would it make sense to have more texts catering to NGOs, for instance
explaining why Free Software is good for developing countries?

* Another area where NGOs might become our ally is encryption: Why is it
that the likes of Amnesty International, Greenpeace etc. are not loud
voices in the discussion about outlawing cryptographic technology? After
all, one would presume that these people had an interest in crypto being
legal.

* Wilhelm Tux could officially sign the Swiss NGO position paper [3].

Personally, I wouldn't mind going to some preparatory meetings,
explaining the Free Software movement to NGO people, etc., but I'm sure
there are people around who are better suited for this.

I'd be sorry if all this was old news to everyone but me. I did try to
find information about FSF's participation at WSIS on the Web, but I had
no real success.  I think it would be quite awkward if such a big-scale
event about the "Information Society," which also is a chance to meet
many potential supporters, was without the presence of one of the most
important groups.

Best regards

-- Sascha Brawer, brawer at acm.org [5]
   Berne, Switzerland

[1] http://www.itu.int/wsis/
[2] Swiss Campaign for Free Software, http://wilhelmtux.ch/
[3] http://www.comunica-ch.net/ (cf. sections II.5 and II.6) [4]
Development NGO funded by Swiss protestant churches; http://www.ppp.ch/
[5] http://www.coli.uni-sb.de/~brawer/
    (I'm not there anymore and should have moved my page a long time
ago..)



_______________________________________________
wilhelmtux-discussion mailing list wilhelmtux-discussion at wilhelmtux.ch
http://wilhelmtux.ch/vmailman/listinfo/wilhelmtux-discussion



From imran at imran.info  Fri Mar 14 13:21:41 2003
From: imran at imran.info (Imran William Smith)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:21:41 +0800
Subject: World Summit on the Information Society
In-Reply-To: <20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
References: <20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
Message-ID: <3E71D765.1080900@imran.info>

Sasha Brawer wrote:
 > Would it make sense to have more texts catering to NGOs, for instance
explaining why Free Software is good for developing countries?

 > Another area where NGOs might become our ally is encryption.


I work in Malaysia and have a part to play in the running
of the 'Asian Open Source Centre' (http://www.AsiaOSC.org)
Personally I support free software but the Government is funding this 
centre and 'free software centre' would not be supported financially,
not enough people have heard of that term in Malaysia and the (fairly
conservative Government) feeling is, we have to start the
argument based on cost, and mention the freedom
aspects when people are listening.  'Software is a human rights
issue' doesn't tend to attract too many listeners round here.
In a country where demonstrations are not a recommended activity
unless the demonstration is an official Government demonstration,
human rights / activism is considered 'best left to NGO / Govt'.

Of course, many argue that precisely in developing countries, price
is not the issue, since piracy of proprietary software is so
rampant.  Particularly, that applies to the home user.  Businesses
are occasionally raided here for software piracy, but private
homes never are.  So there's very little incentive for the home
user to clean up his/her act and move to OSS.

Anyway, I think free software can make a big push into developing
nations.  Especially if you can get to countries early in their
IT adoption process, you have less legacy proprietary software slowing
things down.   FSF-India can hopefully be a big help.

The major news I heard about WSIS and open source / free software, was
the way USA attacked and watered down a WSIS statement on open source
recently.  At least that shows that events like WSIS are talking
about the issues.
http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/29157.html

Encryption - I think that's a more difficult way to push free software.
Why is encryption limited to free software?  Couldn't Microsoft launch
an (admittedly, difficult to trust) PGP-a-like?

If anybody from FSF Europe would like to come to Malaysia at any
time and talk free software, I'm sure I could find you an opportunity
during 2003.

Imran William Smith

-- 
www.AsiaOSC.org  | Asian Open Source Centre
www.mimos.my     | MIMOS Berhad, Malaysia



From markj at cloaked.freeserve.co.uk  Sat Mar 15 11:39:04 2003
From: markj at cloaked.freeserve.co.uk (MJ Ray)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:39:04 GMT
Subject: World Summit on the Information Society
References: <20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
	<20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net> <3E71D765.1080900@imran.info>
Message-ID: <slrnb7646o.1i1.markj+0111@bouncing.localnet>

Imran William Smith <imran at imran.info> wrote:
> Of course, many argue that precisely in developing countries, price
> is not the issue, since piracy of proprietary software is so
> rampant.  Particularly, that applies to the home user.  Businesses
> are occasionally raided here for software piracy, but private
> homes never are.  So there's very little incentive for the home
> user to clean up his/her act and move to OSS.
> 
Maybe the main incentive to offer these people is the ability to fix
and adapt the software to do the tasks that they need to do?  That,
and the ability to study the software design in detail, to give them
new useful skills for the future.



From imran at imran.info  Sat Mar 15 14:15:52 2003
From: imran at imran.info (Imran William Smith)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 22:15:52 +0800
Subject: World Summit on the Information Society
In-Reply-To: <slrnb7646o.1i1.markj+0111@bouncing.localnet>
References: <20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
	<20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net> <3E71D765.1080900@imran.info>
	<slrnb7646o.1i1.markj+0111@bouncing.localnet>
Message-ID: <3E733598.2030203@imran.info>

MJ Ray wrote:
 >
 > Maybe the main incentive to offer these people is the ability to fix
 > and adapt the software to do the tasks that they need to do?  That,
 > and the ability to study the software design in detail, to give them
 > new useful skills for the future.
 >
 >

Yes, certainly we can push the benefits for education and
developing an vibrant local software industry.  In particular,
the current widespread anti-American feelings may help to
encourage people to be wary of software pushed onto
them by US based Microsoft (Taiwan and China are especially
influenced by such political motives).


In the recent Asia Open Source Symposium I attended, which Georg
Greve from FSF Europe also attended (my writeup and all the
slides from the sympo are at http://www.asiaosc.org/article_22.html),
there was mention of 'replacing the US centric development
model'.  I didn't like to mention that just as much stuff
is done in Europe.


On an unrelated topic - could the FSF do something to
raise the profile of the risk anyone involved in shared source
/ GSP is to further software development?  If we can make
companies worried to employ people with a GSP / shared source
history, because of possible future lawsuits from MS, then
programmers know it's in their personal interests to refuse
any GSP / shared source work.  I would like to see a question
on IT recruitment forms asking if you've ever done GSP / shared
source work worked.  Let's make these people 'untouchables'!


Imran
Malaysia




-- 
www.AsiaOSC.org  | Asian Open Source Centre
www.mimos.my     | MIMOS Berhad, Malaysia



From alet at librelogiciel.com  Mon Mar 17 10:31:49 2003
From: alet at librelogiciel.com (Jerome Alet)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:31:49 +0100
Subject: my distribution scheme for GPLed software
In-Reply-To: <1046789532.2152.214.camel@localhost>
References: <20030304095506.GC1145@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046777469.1424.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030304121802.GB10907@chewie.compsoc.com>
	<20030304124348.GA32139@rendezvous.alexworld>
	<15972.42869.226383.740992@elephant.gnu.disi.unige.it>
	<20030304143432.GE4140@mail.librelogiciel.com>
	<1046789532.2152.214.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <20030317103149.GA12229@mail.librelogiciel.com>

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 03:52:12PM +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
> 
> I do not think that Trademark really collide with the GPL.
> If you permit redistribution of the "original" source under the same
> name and only ask politely to change name for modifyed packages.

OK.

Now that's what I've finally decided to do, and I've rephrased the 
website and documentation to remove any pending GPL problem, AFAICT. 

Also, I don't want to play the trademark game.

From now on, the "official" package is fully modifiable, even the 
version number, under the terms of the GNU GPL. (It was already 
fully redistributable) 

I just ask (not impose) to rename modified "official" packages.

Also the "official" package will contain compiled (HTML, PS, PDF)
documentation, while the "unofficial" one, when obtained from CVS,
will just contain the documentation source (docbook). People who
redistribute the "unofficial" version are free to add compiled
documentation though.

Thanks to all who helped.

Jerome Alet
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20030317/76212040/attachment.sig>

From wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be  Mon Mar 17 18:01:05 2003
From: wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be (Wouter Vanden Hove)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:01:05 +0100
Subject: Creative Commons: GPL-Copyleft versus Share Alike
Message-ID: <3E760D61.70508@pandora.be>

Last Fosdem the FSF gave the Free Software Award to Larry Lessig for the 
advancement of Free Software.
But what is the official stance of the FSF's on the Creative Commons 
Share-Alike License?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/

It is a copyleft license, but it for software the GPL is much better.
I understand the Creative Commons is targeted mainly at other 
disciplines of works,
but the Creative Commons says nothing about software.
Shouldn't the Creative Commons be urged by the FSF's to include the GPL 
as their preferred copyleft software-license?


Wouter






From peyer at bfa-ppp.ch  Tue Mar 18 14:02:33 2003
From: peyer at bfa-ppp.ch (Chantal Peyer)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:02:33 +0100
Subject: World Summit on the Information Society
References: <20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
Message-ID: <000c01c2ed57$05f20540$2401a8c0@michel>

Hello,

An interesting article for you, I believe:
http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/237.htm

Chantal Peyer

Geneva, 26 February 2003. The government delegations are currently working
on the summit action plan, after they have debated the "vision" and "key
principles" sections of the draft declaration. The latest version of the
draft was scheduled to be out yesterday evening, but only came out to the
public this morning. Civil society groups are working everywhere to produce
comments and amendmends. The drafting group of civil society's "content and
themes" committee is putting them together as a common input for the
sessions of PrepCom subcommittee 2. There are a number of issues that are
not welcome by many groups. For example, all mentions of "open source" and
"free software" have been deleted completely in the current draft.
"Security", which became a big theme in the recent months due to the US-led
"war against terrorism" has got a whole section now, arguing for the need to
"prevent the use of information resources or technologies for criminal or
terrorist purposes". Civil society groups fear that this language would be
used to legitimise new suveillance powers and weaken civil liberties. The
European Union today circulated a "List of Issues" paper for the declaration
themes and the action plan, which was mostly welcomed by Civil Society. But
it is still unclear if the EU will use its international weight to really
push this in the negotiations. The Greek presidency seems to be very calm,
and the other EU government delegations leave it up to them to speak out
publicly.
These conflicts will continue in the coming months. Today it became clear
that PrepCom2 will not produce any final version of the draft summit
declaration. With only one and a half days left for negotiations, time is
running out. Today we heard that the outcome of PrepCom2 will probably only
get the status of a "rough draft". This working document will further be
discussed in an "intersessional process" before PrepCom3 in September. It is
still not clear if this will be an open process with participation of all
stakeholders, or if the government delegations will meet behind closed doors
only. But even if the intersessional process is open, it creates heavy
problems for the real participation of many disadvantaged actors. The
poorest countries which do not have permanent missions to the United Nations
in Geneva might not have the ressources to attend all these meetings, and
the high costs for traveling and staying in this expensive city will prevent
a lot of civil society groups from participating, too.

The lack of openness and inclusion of all stakeholders again led to sharp
criticism in the open session of subcommittee 2 this morning. The private
sector delegates were really annoyed by the exclusion, and the international
organisations and civil society speakers voiced their critique along the
same lines. The president of the PrepCom, Adama Samassekou, was quite
impressed by these complaints. He invited the heads of the government
delegations to a special discussion on multi-stakeholder participation and
involvement. We have not heard any outcomes yet, but we will closely follow
the further progress of these debates.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Sascha Brawer" <brawer at acm.org>
To: <discussion at fsfeurope.org>; "Wilhelm Tux"
<wilhelmtux-discussion at wilhelmtux.ch>; <gnu at gnu.org>; <team at fsfeurope.org>
Cc: "Loic Dachary" <loic at gnu.org>; "Chantal Peyer" <peyer at bfa-ppp.ch>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 4:09 AM
Subject: World Summit on the Information Society


Hi all

It seems that the Free Software movement has well-informed allies in
rather unexpected areas.  At least to me, it was news that traditional
development-collaboration organizations are concerned about Information
Technology, to an extent that they are discussing software patents with
the Patent Office.  So, please let me describe an experience before I ask
a few questions.

Today, a number of Swiss non-governmental organizations met in Berne to
discuss WSIS, the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society
[1] whose first part will take place in Geneva in December 2003.  Most of
the audience was rather remote from computing: Besides Alex Schröder and
myself, who were both representing Wilhelm Tux [2], probably pretty much
everyone else was from a media, development, women's, human rights, ...
organization. Correspondingly, a big part of the discussion was about
topics like the digital divide, community radios, or oppression of
journalists -- all very important, but not immediately related to Free
Software.

However, the official position paper ('platform') of the Swiss NGOs [3]
does include short statements about Free Software and Intellectual
Property rights.  The symposium brochure contains several paragraphs
about these topics.  Actually, the organizers turned out to be quite
familiar with the goals of our movement.  For example, Chantal Peyer of
'Bread for All' [4], who co-organized the symposium, has read the GNU
philosophy pages and is well aware of the discussion around software
patents.  Chantal told me that their position on the patent system
actually is one of the areas where they got into a debate with the Swiss
administration, so they had discussions with a representative from the
patent office.

I was quite surprised and delighted to hear this, of course.  In my
humble opinion, the least we as proponents of Free Software should do is
to become more visible to these supporters of our goals.  While I
personally doubt that big-scale events like WSIS can have very concrete
effects, the world summit in December might be a good opportunity for
getting publicity and more supporters. So, I'd like to ask a few things:

* Does the FSF have any plans with regards to the WSIS summit in Geneva?
I've found a few postings on the Web containing both 'WSIS' and ('GNU' or
'FSF'), but nothing too concrete. The official list of WSIS participants
does not seem to include FSF.

* Are people at FSF Europe aware of WSIS? Did the country chapters
establish any contacts to the respective preparation groups in their
area? Maybe other groups will be surprised, too, to hear about unexpected
supporters of Free Software.

* Would it make sense to have more texts catering to NGOs, for instance
explaining why Free Software is good for developing countries?

* Another area where NGOs might become our ally is encryption: Why is it
that the likes of Amnesty International, Greenpeace etc. are not loud
voices in the discussion about outlawing cryptographic technology? After
all, one would presume that these people had an interest in crypto being
legal.

* Wilhelm Tux could officially sign the Swiss NGO position paper [3].

Personally, I wouldn't mind going to some preparatory meetings,
explaining the Free Software movement to NGO people, etc., but I'm sure
there are people around who are better suited for this.

I'd be sorry if all this was old news to everyone but me. I did try to
find information about FSF's participation at WSIS on the Web, but I had
no real success.  I think it would be quite awkward if such a big-scale
event about the "Information Society," which also is a chance to meet
many potential supporters, was without the presence of one of the most
important groups.

Best regards

-- Sascha Brawer, brawer at acm.org [5]
   Berne, Switzerland

[1] http://www.itu.int/wsis/
[2] Swiss Campaign for Free Software, http://wilhelmtux.ch/
[3] http://www.comunica-ch.net/ (cf. sections II.5 and II.6)
[4] Development NGO funded by Swiss protestant churches; http://www.ppp.ch/
[5] http://www.coli.uni-sb.de/~brawer/
    (I'm not there anymore and should have moved my page a long time ago..)





From brawer at dandelis.ch  Tue Mar 18 14:09:11 2003
From: brawer at dandelis.ch (Sascha Brawer)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:09:11 +0100
Subject: World Summit on the Information Society
In-Reply-To: <87smtq1fq3.fsf@april.org>
References: <87smtq1fq3.fsf@april.org>
Message-ID: <20030318140911.2460@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>

Hi all,

many thanks to everyone for replying to my questions with regards to
WSIS, the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society in
Geneva, December 2003.

To summarize: Free Software proponents are in contact with several local
WSIS preparation groups.  Also, some local NGOs, whose declared goals
include the propagation of Free Software, have registered with the
summit.  However, unless I'm overlooking something, the Free Software
Foundation has not officially been present at any meetings so far.

I cannot speak for the FSF, of course, but I really think that it would
be a pity to miss this opportunity.  At least in my personal opinion, the
Free Software Foundation should be represented at the summit.

Does anyone know how to make this happen?

-- Sascha Brawer, brawer at dandelis.ch
   http://www.dandelis.ch/people/brawer/



From pascal at ker.org  Tue Mar 18 15:53:29 2003
From: pascal at ker.org (Pascal Desroche)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:53:29 +0100
Subject: Free Software Party all over France this week end
Message-ID: <87znnsd62u.fsf@fxprojet.fxprojet.org>


Hi;

maybe you've already heard about it, maybe not. This the second year now
that there is Free Software national party in France.

It relays upon individual activism, as usually. From march 21 to march
23, there was 9 cities in France involved last year, 15 this year, maybe
more to come in the week.

There is a website where anyone can get info about the event (sorry
it's in French only)
http://www.libre-en-fete.net

Maybe you could all relay information about it so that people will come
to France for fun, but, more important, this party could spread to other
countries next year.

There is a logo available on the website and if you need more
explanations, please ask ;

The idea at the beginning is to create an event to celebrate free
software developers and to gather people around talkings and
demonstrations in fancy places.

For example, we set up something in Brittany (west coast of France) in a
farm. Farmers will bring the food they make and we set up a network in
the farm, connected to the net through DSL, and we invite everybody.

If someone wants to show up here, I can manage for a free hosting :)

Pascal



From ciaran at member.fsf.org  Wed Mar 19 00:38:48 2003
From: ciaran at member.fsf.org (Ciaran O'Riordan)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:38:48 +0000
Subject: Creative Commons: GPL-Copyleft versus Share Alike
In-Reply-To: <3E760D61.70508@pandora.be>
References: <3E760D61.70508@pandora.be>
Message-ID: <20030319003848.GA9173@chewie.compsoc.com>

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:01:05PM +0100, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
> Last Fosdem the FSF gave the Free Software Award to Larry Lessig for the 
> advancement of Free Software.
> But what is the official stance of the FSF's on the Creative Commons 
> Share-Alike License?


I mailed FSF when Creative Commons was announced, asking if they'd
publicly comment on it.

I got a reply saying that the goals were too different for them
to comment.  CC isn't for software.

Lessig is a good man, he's worked along side FSF in the past,
gave them $20,000 last year, and Stallman reads his work.

I reckon they'd give a project of his the thumbs up.


> Shouldn't the Creative Commons be urged by the FSF's to include the GPL 
> as their preferred copyleft software-license?

I agree that they should have a note somewhere about it.

Maybe Lessig sees simplicity as a main aim in making the CC system work.
...or maybe you should send the CC guys a mail to suggest it.


Ciaran O'Riordan

From fcouchet at april.org  Wed Mar 19 08:43:45 2003
From: fcouchet at april.org (Frederic Couchet)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:43:45 +0100
Subject: World Summit on the Information Society
In-Reply-To: <20030318140911.2460@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net> (Sascha Brawer's
 message of "Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:09:11 +0100")
References: <87smtq1fq3.fsf@april.org>
	<20030318140911.2460@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
Message-ID: <87pton4ugu.fsf@april.org>

>>>>> "Sascha" == Sascha Brawer <brawer at dandelis.ch> writes:

    Sascha> unless I'm overlooking something, the Free Software
    Sascha> Foundation has not officially been present at any meetings
    Sascha> so far.

    Sascha> I cannot speak for the FSF, of course, but I really think
    Sascha> that it would be a pity to miss this opportunity.  At
    Sascha> least in my personal opinion, the Free Software Foundation
    Sascha> should be represented at the summit.

In France, the FSF is represented in the preparation process (by me,
mainly). 

It is much more important to be in the preparation process (discussion
with local groups, PrepComs...) than to be in Geneva at the summit
itself.

From ward at gnu.org  Wed Mar 19 09:17:24 2003
From: ward at gnu.org (Ward Vandewege)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:17:24 +0000
Subject: Creative Commons: GPL-Copyleft versus Share Alike
In-Reply-To: <20030319003848.GA9173@chewie.compsoc.com>
References: <3E760D61.70508@pandora.be>
	<20030319003848.GA9173@chewie.compsoc.com>
Message-ID: <20030319091724.GA6944@countzero>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 12:38:48AM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:01:05PM +0100, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
> > Last Fosdem the FSF gave the Free Software Award to Larry Lessig for the 
> > advancement of Free Software.
> > But what is the official stance of the FSF's on the Creative Commons 
> > Share-Alike License?
> 
> I mailed FSF when Creative Commons was announced, asking if they'd
> publicly comment on it.
> 
> I got a reply saying that the goals were too different for them
> to comment.  CC isn't for software.

(IANAL)
Hmmm, not so sure about that - the GPL is my software license of choice, but
there isn't all that much difference with CC's Share-Alike license.
(http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?partner=&exit%5furl=&license%5fcode=sa).

> Lessig is a good man, he's worked along side FSF in the past,
> gave them $20,000 last year, and Stallman reads his work.

Lessig is one of my heroes - as is RMS - but I do think you're mixing up
Lessig and Eben Moglen, the FSF legal council, who donated $20,000 to the FSF
last year
(http://digitalmass.boston.com/news/globe_tech/upgrade/2002/1125.html).
Unless Lessig *also* gave them $20,000, of course :)

> I reckon they'd give a project of his the thumbs up.

I'm pretty sure they do.

> > Shouldn't the Creative Commons be urged by the FSF's to include the GPL 
> > as their preferred copyleft software-license?
> 
> I agree that they should have a note somewhere about it.
> 
> Maybe Lessig sees simplicity as a main aim in making the CC system work.
> ...or maybe you should send the CC guys a mail to suggest it.

I think CC and the FSF are complementary in the way that CC is much more
accessible to the masses. One can actually point non-programmers/non-lawyers/
copyright novices to their site and say 'choose a license' - which they will
be able to do quite intuitively.

I've asked CC about dual-licensing things (GPL & their BY-SA license), and
here is what they said:

>Thanks for your questions.  First off I am required to say that we are
>not lawyers and are not able to give legal advice, however I can give
>you my perspective on this.  Ultimately you can do what you like, but I
>think you could run into problems if there are any conflicting terms in
>either of the licenses.  However in the case of derivative works you
>can specify that the user has the option to use either one of the
>license, just make sure it's clearly written somewhere. Thanks for the
>note, we should put a more in depth FAQ on this.

So that is probably what I will do with the software I write. For
non-software, I'll probably go for CC licenses with their pretty icons and
straightforward definitions.

Bye for now,
Ward.

- -- 
Pong.be         -( "Free Software as in free speech, not free beer. Think  )-
Virtual hosting -(       of freedom, not price." -- Richard Stallman       )-
http://pong.be  -(                                                         )-
GnuPG public key: http://gpg.dtype.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+eDWkqC3O5tzmh5wRAsVlAJ9k0Bkbx0QQfyyRa1G6K8vDRm9Z+QCeLZdE
O4UNMia0IKRCiq9Li8zhUq8=
=xYJk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From stef at zoomata.com  Wed Mar 19 10:28:29 2003
From: stef at zoomata.com (Stefano Maffulli)
Date: 19 Mar 2003 11:28:29 +0100
Subject: World Summit on the Information Society
In-Reply-To: <3E733598.2030203@imran.info>
References: <20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
	<20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
	<slrnb7646o.1i1.markj+0111@bouncing.localnet>
	<3E733598.2030203@imran.info>
Message-ID: <1048069709.2029.40.camel@plusultraII.madeinlinux.intranet>

On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 15:15, Imran William Smith wrote:
> On an unrelated topic - could the FSF do something to
> raise the profile of the risk anyone involved in shared source
> / GSP is to further software development?  If we can make
> companies worried to employ people with a GSP / shared source
> history, because of possible future lawsuits from MS, then
> programmers know it's in their personal interests to refuse
> any GSP / shared source work.  I would like to see a question
> on IT recruitment forms asking if you've ever done GSP / shared
> source work worked.  Let's make these people 'untouchables'!

Do you have or are there evidence that MS could file lawsuits against
developers that read MS code?  Do you know people of governments that
actually read the final NDA and can tell us for sure that this would be
the case?  We need to find out for sure before we declare them
"untouchables", otherwise we run the risk of being called "names" :)

regards
stef
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20030319/3e5c59c3/attachment.sig>

From ciaran at member.fsf.org  Wed Mar 19 11:11:00 2003
From: ciaran at member.fsf.org (Ciaran O'Riordan)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:11:00 +0000
Subject: Creative Commons: GPL-Copyleft versus Share Alike
In-Reply-To: <20030319091724.GA6944@countzero>
References: <3E760D61.70508@pandora.be>
	<20030319003848.GA9173@chewie.compsoc.com> <20030319091724.GA6944@countzero>
Message-ID: <20030319111100.GA17951@chewie.compsoc.com>

On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 09:17:24AM +0000, Ward Vandewege wrote:
> > I got a reply saying that the goals were too different for them
> > to comment.  CC isn't for software.
> 
> Hmmm, not so sure about that - the GPL is my software license of choice, but
> there isn't all that much difference with CC's Share-Alike license.

I wouldn't use any of the CC licenses for software, they are too vague.
Issues such as static/dynamic linking are a lot more vague than the GPL.
You or I can read it as being sufficient but IBM (etc.) could easily
pick holes in it (for software).

> I do think you're mixing up
> Lessig and Eben Moglen, the FSF legal council, who donated $20,000 to the FSF
> last year

how embarassing.  Your right.

> I think CC and the FSF are complementary in the way that CC is much more
> accessible to the masses.

More accessible yes, but I don't think the CC licenses would offer as
much protection for software as the GPL does.

> I've asked CC about dual-licensing things (GPL & their BY-SA license), and
> here is what they said:
> >[...]
> >Ultimately you can do what you like, but I
> >think you could run into problems if there are any conflicting terms in
> >either of the licenses.

The CC person appears to be wrong in this case.  Dual licensing cannot
cause such "conflicts".  If you dual license, the receiver of the item
can choose to use it under the terms of either license.  Could you let
me know who said this so that I can clear this up?

> So that is probably what I will do with the software I write.

I'd strongly suggest you consider not dual licensing the GPL and a
CC license.  Using a CC license will leave your software far more
open to exploitation.

The requirement to ship source code isn't clear, and the requirement
to ship *readable* source code is not mentioned at all... etc.  SCO
could easily (and legaly) produce a modified version and *not* ship
the source.

Last point: software is about the only type of "work" not mentioned
in the CC licenses, Lessig is well aware that software exists :)
There just might be a reason why they left it out.

Ciaran O'Riordan

From ward at gnu.org  Wed Mar 19 11:33:00 2003
From: ward at gnu.org (Ward Vandewege)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:33:00 +0000
Subject: Creative Commons: GPL-Copyleft versus Share Alike
In-Reply-To: <20030319111100.GA17951@chewie.compsoc.com>
References: <3E760D61.70508@pandora.be>
	<20030319003848.GA9173@chewie.compsoc.com> <20030319091724.GA6944@countzero>
	<20030319111100.GA17951@chewie.compsoc.com>
Message-ID: <20030319113300.GA8253@countzero>

On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 11:11:00AM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> > I think CC and the FSF are complementary in the way that CC is much more
> > accessible to the masses.
> 
> More accessible yes, but I don't think the CC licenses would offer as
> much protection for software as the GPL does.

Hmmm. Interesting. I guess you are right. From the CC FAQ at
http://creativecommons.org/faq:

  Right now we don't plan to get involved in software licensing at all.
  Instead, we'll concentrate on scholarship, film, literature, music,
  photography, and other kinds of creative works.

> > >Ultimately you can do what you like, but I
> > >think you could run into problems if there are any conflicting terms in
> > >either of the licenses.
> 
> The CC person appears to be wrong in this case.  Dual licensing cannot
> cause such "conflicts".  If you dual license, the receiver of the item
> can choose to use it under the terms of either license.  Could you let
> me know who said this so that I can clear this up?

Well, she did put the IANAL disclaimer first. And now it is time for me to be
embarrased, since my question to her was:

>I would like to cover my writings under your BY-SA license and the GDL
>(without invariant sections), and give people the option of licensing
>derivative works under either the BY-SA license or the GDL (without 
>invariant sections) or both. Can I do this?

As you can see, not about software but about non-software - and comparing the
CC licenses with the GNU Documentation License, not the GPL.

So I don't think there is much need to clear up things.

> I'd strongly suggest you consider not dual licensing the GPL and a
> CC license.  Using a CC license will leave your software far more
> open to exploitation.

Point taken. I'll stick with the GPL for software. For all the rest
(writings, photos, etc) I think I'll go with the CC licenses.

Bye for now,
Ward.

-- 
Pong.be         -(  "Just wait,  My crystal ball is infallible." -- Linus  )-
Virtual hosting -( Torvalds, discussing the future of smart I/O hardware.  )-
http://pong.be  -(                                                         )-
GnuPG public key: http://gpg.dtype.org

From simo.sorce at xsec.it  Wed Mar 19 12:03:20 2003
From: simo.sorce at xsec.it (Simo Sorce)
Date: 19 Mar 2003 13:03:20 +0100
Subject: World Summit on the Information Society
In-Reply-To: <1048069709.2029.40.camel@plusultraII.madeinlinux.intranet>
References: <20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
	<20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
	<3E733598.2030203@imran.info>
	<1048069709.2029.40.camel@plusultraII.madeinlinux.intranet>
Message-ID: <1048075400.2406.56.camel@localhost>

On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 11:28, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 15:15, Imran William Smith wrote:
> > On an unrelated topic - could the FSF do something to
> > raise the profile of the risk anyone involved in shared source
> > / GSP is to further software development?  If we can make
> > companies worried to employ people with a GSP / shared source
> > history, because of possible future lawsuits from MS, then
> > programmers know it's in their personal interests to refuse
> > any GSP / shared source work.  I would like to see a question
> > on IT recruitment forms asking if you've ever done GSP / shared
> > source work worked.  Let's make these people 'untouchables'!
> 
> Do you have or are there evidence that MS could file lawsuits against
> developers that read MS code?  Do you know people of governments that
> actually read the final NDA and can tell us for sure that this would be
> the case?  We need to find out for sure before we declare them
> "untouchables", otherwise we run the risk of being called "names" :)

The problem is that probably the NDA forbid to tell others details about
the NDA itself, at least the NDA on MS CIFS protocol documents seem to
be designed like that.

However the SCO vs IBM case show clearly how dangerous can be signing
NDAs without deep evaluation.

Simo.


-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce at xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l. - http://www.xsec.it
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
mobile: +39 329 328 7702
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20030319/5872db76/attachment.sig>

From taz at cafeine.org  Wed Mar 19 13:45:25 2003
From: taz at cafeine.org (Jerome Dominguez)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:45:25 +0100
Subject: Spanish discussion list
Message-ID: <20030319144525.A75409@ns1.idianet.net>

By chance, I learned the existence of the Spanish discussion
list of the FSF Europe : 

http://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-es

AFAIK, this list seems not have been announced here.

BTW, why not use Savannah as for the other fsfe-* lists ?

From Marcus.Brinkmann at ruhr-uni-bochum.de  Wed Mar 19 13:47:47 2003
From: Marcus.Brinkmann at ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Marcus Brinkmann)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:47:47 +0100
Subject: World Summit on the Information Society
In-Reply-To: <1048069709.2029.40.camel@plusultraII.madeinlinux.intranet>
References: <20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
	<20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
	<slrnb7646o.1i1.markj+0111@bouncing.localnet> <3E733598.2030203@imran.info>
	<1048069709.2029.40.camel@plusultraII.madeinlinux.intranet>
Message-ID: <20030319134747.GA1567@212.23.136.22>

On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 11:28:29AM +0100, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> Do you have or are there evidence that MS could file lawsuits against
> developers that read MS code?

MS can always file a lawsuit, as long as it can convince the court that it
has a case.  If it sues you of copyright violation because there is an
indication that you have read MS source code and then used portions of it in
your own code, that is certainly enough of a case to at least allow the
allegation to be tested in court (and once they have dragged you into a
lawsuit, it doesn't really matter if they are right or wrong, or if you can
proof that).

The best defense is to stay away from proprietary source code as far as
possible.

Thanks,
Marcus

-- 
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU      http://www.gnu.org    marcus at gnu.org
Marcus Brinkmann              The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
Marcus.Brinkmann at ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/

From seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org  Sun Mar 23 00:46:09 2003
From: seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:46:09 -0500
Subject: Overview of Software Patent Issue
Message-ID: <3E7D03D1.3212ADE5@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


A very good slide show providing an overview of the software patent issue as
it is being played out in Europe:

> http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/

W3C PPWG members may find the XML-related software patents at
http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide25-0.html of particular interest.  I
have pasted the contents of that slide at the bottom of this message.

Below is the table of contents, as well as the contents of several slides
describing the juridical transition in Europe toward allowing patents on
"mental methods."

>From a message to the patents at aful.org list.

Seth Johnson

---

> http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/

The non-patent side of software patents
by Gérald Sédrati-Dinet (mailto:sedrati at bigfoot.com)

Interest of software patents for a small software publisher

Detailed Table of Contents

First patent (obvious) justification : Defensive 
   Defensive - Other means of "protection" 
   Defensive - "Protection" from what ? 
   Defensive - Cost of law suit 
   Defensive - Cross-licensing 

Second patent (obvious) justification : Offensive 
   Offensive - Incentive to R & D 
   Offensive - Software intrinsic properties 
   Offensive - SMEs 
   Offensive - Economic model 
   Offensive - Economic model and natural experiment 

Last patent (obvious) justification : Advertise 
   Advertise - Dubious patent quality 
   Advertise - Inside a vitiated system 
   Advertise - Other means 

Beyond the software patent system : Social impact 
   Social impact - Software "as such" 
   Social impact - Road taken by EPO leading to privatization of ideas 
   Social impact - Examples of mental methods (1/2) 
   Social impact - Examples of mental methods (2/2) 
   Social impact - Software's specific nature 

Conclusion 
   Conclusion - Profit vs Loss 
   Conclusion - Non-patent side 
   Conclusion - Example of potential infringement 

The End  

---

> http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide18-0.html

Social impact - Road taken by EPO leading to privatization of ideas

------------------------------------------------------------

Computer programs are not patentable 
Europe Patent Convention, Munich, 5 October 1973

Inventions containing a computer program are patentable 
Case of Schlumberger, Court of Appeal of Paris 15 June 1981: Whereas the
process claimed comprises six successive stages, some of which indisputably
involve the application of computer programmes, but the whole description of
the patent is not reduced to information processing by computers.

Machines containing an innovating computer program are patentable 
Generic robot containing a computer program that control the robot: stress
on hardware part

Algorithmic process processing information with a technical effect are
patentable 
Case of Vicom T 208/84 Technical Board of Appeal 15 July 1986: Even if the
idea underlying an invention may be considered to reside in a mathematical
method a claim directed to a technical process in which the method is used
does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such.

The virtual machine theory 
Koch & Sterzel case T 0026/86 Technical Board of Appeal 21 May 1987:If the
program controls the operation of a conventional general-purpose computer so
as technically to alter its functioning, the unit consisting of program and
computer combined may be a patentable invention.

Computer programs that are not "as such" are patentable 
Case of International Business Machines Corporation T 0935/97 Technical
Board of Appeal 4 february 1986:Programs for computer must be considerated
as patentable invention when they have a technical character.

Process of management by a computer 
EP756731: Interactive Information Selection Apparatus (for selecting the
items for a meal)

Mental methods ? 

---

> http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide19-0.html

Social impact - Examples of mental methods (1/2)

------------------------------------------------------------

Educative methods

US5443036 1993: Method of exercing a cat 
US6015947 1999: Method of teaching music 
US6024577 Fujitsu 1997 : Network-based education system with capability to
provide review material according to individual students' understanding
levels 

Management methods

EP209907 1989: General-purpose management system, method for operating said
system and transfer slip 
US6070142 Andersen Consulting 1998: Virtual customer sales and service
center and method 

Electronic trading methods

US5724424 Open Market 1995: Digital active advertising 
US6029141 Amazon.com 1997: Internet-based customer referral system 

---

> http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide20-0.html

Social impact - Examples of mental methods (2/2)

------------------------------------------------------------

Consulting methods

US5734890 Gartner Group 1995: System and method for analyzing procurement
decisions and customer satisfaction 

Financial methods

US4752877 & EP0278132 College Savings Bank 1986: Method and apparatus for
funding a future liability of uncertain cost 

Social methods

US6092051 & EP1017025 NEC 1995, 2000: Receipt-free electronic voting method
and system

---

> http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide25-0.html

Conclusion - Example of potential infringement

------------------------------------------------------------

SME that publishes a software on an XML repository and that is applying
software patents for a dynamic page ranking strategy for a crawler and for
sorting responses to queries

Results of Search for "xml repository": 2 patents. 
Results of Search for "xml database": 6 patents. 
Results of Search for "xml query": 2 patents. 
Results of Search for "page rank": 8 patents. 
Results of Search for "sort query": 18 patents. 

US6263332 Vignette Corp 17 January 2001: System and method for query
processing of structured documents
A computer-implemented method of retrieving information in a first markup
language through a query engine and presenting the information in any
required markup language. A user inputs a query and may invoke a number of
transformative sequences. These sequences contain a markup language pattern
and an action, which may include transforming the tags in the first markup
language to tags in a different markup language. The appropriate
transformative sequence is selected and the pattern from the transformative
sequence is compiled. The compiled pattern is used to perform rapid and
efficient searches of documents in the database. A predicate check using the
binary coding of the node as well as ancestor information confirms the node.
The leaf information associated with a confirmed node is then stored. If
necessary, the action from the transformative sequence is applied to change
the markup language of the leaf information to that of the user 

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.


From wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be  Sun Mar 23 01:22:04 2003
From: wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be (Wouter Vanden Hove)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 02:22:04 +0100
Subject: Course James Boyle
In-Reply-To: <3E7D03D1.3212ADE5@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
References: <3E7D03D1.3212ADE5@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <3E7D0C3C.6010503@pandora.be>


I just came across  James Boyle's academic course on
"Intellectual Property in the Information Society"
under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License
http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/ipmaterials2001.pdf  [pdf, 553 pages]
http://www.james-boyle.com/

Nice to have as a background reference for many patent, trademark and 
copyright issues.
Or just to impress your friends by quoting U.S. Constitution Article. I, 
§ 8, cl. 8.  :)


Wouter



Seth Johnson wrote:

>A very good slide show providing an overview of the software patent issue as
>it is being played out in Europe:
>
>  
>
>>http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/
>>    
>>
>
>W3C PPWG members may find the XML-related software patents at
>http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide25-0.html of particular interest.  I
>have pasted the contents of that slide at the bottom of this message.
>
>Below is the table of contents, as well as the contents of several slides
>describing the juridical transition in Europe toward allowing patents on
>"mental methods."
>
>>From a message to the patents at aful.org list.
>
>Seth Johnson
>
>---
>
>  
>
>>http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/
>>    
>>
>
>The non-patent side of software patents
>by Gérald Sédrati-Dinet (mailto:sedrati at bigfoot.com)
>
>Interest of software patents for a small software publisher
>
>Detailed Table of Contents
>
>First patent (obvious) justification : Defensive 
>   Defensive - Other means of "protection" 
>   Defensive - "Protection" from what ? 
>   Defensive - Cost of law suit 
>   Defensive - Cross-licensing 
>
>Second patent (obvious) justification : Offensive 
>   Offensive - Incentive to R & D 
>   Offensive - Software intrinsic properties 
>   Offensive - SMEs 
>   Offensive - Economic model 
>   Offensive - Economic model and natural experiment 
>
>Last patent (obvious) justification : Advertise 
>   Advertise - Dubious patent quality 
>   Advertise - Inside a vitiated system 
>   Advertise - Other means 
>
>Beyond the software patent system : Social impact 
>   Social impact - Software "as such" 
>   Social impact - Road taken by EPO leading to privatization of ideas 
>   Social impact - Examples of mental methods (1/2) 
>   Social impact - Examples of mental methods (2/2) 
>   Social impact - Software's specific nature 
>
>Conclusion 
>   Conclusion - Profit vs Loss 
>   Conclusion - Non-patent side 
>   Conclusion - Example of potential infringement 
>
>The End  
>
>---
>
>  
>
>>http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide18-0.html
>>    
>>
>
>Social impact - Road taken by EPO leading to privatization of ideas
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Computer programs are not patentable 
>Europe Patent Convention, Munich, 5 October 1973
>
>Inventions containing a computer program are patentable 
>Case of Schlumberger, Court of Appeal of Paris 15 June 1981: Whereas the
>process claimed comprises six successive stages, some of which indisputably
>involve the application of computer programmes, but the whole description of
>the patent is not reduced to information processing by computers.
>
>Machines containing an innovating computer program are patentable 
>Generic robot containing a computer program that control the robot: stress
>on hardware part
>
>Algorithmic process processing information with a technical effect are
>patentable 
>Case of Vicom T 208/84 Technical Board of Appeal 15 July 1986: Even if the
>idea underlying an invention may be considered to reside in a mathematical
>method a claim directed to a technical process in which the method is used
>does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such.
>
>The virtual machine theory 
>Koch & Sterzel case T 0026/86 Technical Board of Appeal 21 May 1987:If the
>program controls the operation of a conventional general-purpose computer so
>as technically to alter its functioning, the unit consisting of program and
>computer combined may be a patentable invention.
>
>Computer programs that are not "as such" are patentable 
>Case of International Business Machines Corporation T 0935/97 Technical
>Board of Appeal 4 february 1986:Programs for computer must be considerated
>as patentable invention when they have a technical character.
>
>Process of management by a computer 
>EP756731: Interactive Information Selection Apparatus (for selecting the
>items for a meal)
>
>Mental methods ? 
>
>---
>
>  
>
>>http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide19-0.html
>>    
>>
>
>Social impact - Examples of mental methods (1/2)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Educative methods
>
>US5443036 1993: Method of exercing a cat 
>US6015947 1999: Method of teaching music 
>US6024577 Fujitsu 1997 : Network-based education system with capability to
>provide review material according to individual students' understanding
>levels 
>
>Management methods
>
>EP209907 1989: General-purpose management system, method for operating said
>system and transfer slip 
>US6070142 Andersen Consulting 1998: Virtual customer sales and service
>center and method 
>
>Electronic trading methods
>
>US5724424 Open Market 1995: Digital active advertising 
>US6029141 Amazon.com 1997: Internet-based customer referral system 
>
>---
>
>  
>
>>http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide20-0.html
>>    
>>
>
>Social impact - Examples of mental methods (2/2)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Consulting methods
>
>US5734890 Gartner Group 1995: System and method for analyzing procurement
>decisions and customer satisfaction 
>
>Financial methods
>
>US4752877 & EP0278132 College Savings Bank 1986: Method and apparatus for
>funding a future liability of uncertain cost 
>
>Social methods
>
>US6092051 & EP1017025 NEC 1995, 2000: Receipt-free electronic voting method
>and system
>
>---
>
>  
>
>>http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide25-0.html
>>    
>>
>
>Conclusion - Example of potential infringement
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>SME that publishes a software on an XML repository and that is applying
>software patents for a dynamic page ranking strategy for a crawler and for
>sorting responses to queries
>
>Results of Search for "xml repository": 2 patents. 
>Results of Search for "xml database": 6 patents. 
>Results of Search for "xml query": 2 patents. 
>Results of Search for "page rank": 8 patents. 
>Results of Search for "sort query": 18 patents. 
>
>US6263332 Vignette Corp 17 January 2001: System and method for query
>processing of structured documents
>A computer-implemented method of retrieving information in a first markup
>language through a query engine and presenting the information in any
>required markup language. A user inputs a query and may invoke a number of
>transformative sequences. These sequences contain a markup language pattern
>and an action, which may include transforming the tags in the first markup
>language to tags in a different markup language. The appropriate
>transformative sequence is selected and the pattern from the transformative
>sequence is compiled. The compiled pattern is used to perform rapid and
>efficient searches of documents in the database. A predicate check using the
>binary coding of the node as well as ancestor information confirms the node.
>The leaf information associated with a confirmed node is then stored. If
>necessary, the action from the transformative sequence is applied to change
>the markup language of the leaf information to that of the user 
>
>http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html
>
>  
>



From peyer at bfa-ppp.ch  Mon Mar 24 08:06:23 2003
From: peyer at bfa-ppp.ch (Chantal Peyer)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:06:23 +0100
Subject: Tarun from Nepal - logiciels libres dans prise de position SMSI
References: <002401c2f058$ad514d10$0100a8c0@nom00cl76thy97>
Message-ID: <010901c2f1dc$433b8af0$2401a8c0@michel>

Chère Claude,

Juste un petite précision d'abord: je ne suis pas "member of the executive
committee for WSIS".. Ou alors qu'entends-tu par-là? Je suis simplement
représentante de Pain pour le prochain (et des ONG Nors-Sud membres de la
communauté de travail) au sein de la délégation officielle suisse....

Pour les logiciels libres. Jai relu ce week-end les déclarations de la
société civile lors de la prepcopm2, et je pense que les deux textes
(déclarations et plan d'action)  contiennent des revendications importantes
sur la question des logiciels libres. Voir http://www.worldsummit2003.de/
(section: Zweite WSIS Vorbereitungskonferenz PrepCom2
Worldsummit2003.de berichtete; puis Zivilgesellschaft: Thematische
Arbeitsgruppen und Stellungnahmen, puis ting Group for the Common Statements
of Civil Society) pour trouver ces documents.

 Quelques exemples des demandes de la société civile pour le plan d'action:

ð Authors must be encouraged to retain ownership of their copyrights and not
to automatically transfer copyrights to publishers or other intermediaries.
ð Non-commercial use and private copy of digital contents should be regarded
and protected as fair use.
ð Computer software has different characteristics from other creative works
in that it is functional/technical works and has no meaning as a public
domain after the protection period. So, computer software should not be
protected by copyright, or at least, the protection period of computer
software should be shortened.
ð Open Source/Free Software shall be adopted by all public authorities and
bodies.
ð Developing countries should investigate how to leverage the opportunities
presented by the emergence of Open Source/Free software in the context of
limited financial resources and expertise.
ð Change current intellectual property regimes so that all information and
knowledge produced with the aid of public resources, for example the outputs
of publicly funded educational and research institutions, are automatically
released as open content and made available and accessible at no cost into
the public domain.

ð Software shall not be patentable, in principle.
ð Business model (or method) patent should not be allowed.
ð A first-to-invent instead a first-to-file patent application rule shall be
adopted, in order to better preserve the rights of academic scientists and
low-income inventors.
ð The purpose of patent is to develop technology and thus to promote the
quality of life such as health, etc. In line with it, national policy to
limit patent holders right for public health such as compulsory licensing
and parallel importation should be allowed without interference of other
countries as addressed in the declaration on TRIPS agreement and public
health adopted in Doha WTO ministerial conference.

Il faut à mon avis s'en inspirer pour des demandes suisses.

Chantal



----- Original Message -----
From: "Claude Almansi" <claude.almansi at bluewin.ch>
To: "Chantal Peyer" <peyer at bfa-ppp.ch>; "Michel Egger"
<megger at swisscoalition.ch>; "Marie Thorndahl" <marie at mondes.info>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: TR : Tarun from Nepal - logiciels libres dans prise de position
SMSI



Chers Amis

J'ai connu Tarun à la réunion UNESCO à Lugano. C'est en partie son
journal www.spacetimeonline.com qui m'a poussée à demander que les
suisses présents cessent de parler de "pays moins avancés" en matière de
TIC pour des pays moins avantagés, mais qui ont les idées beaucoup plus
claires que nous dans ce domaine.

Je crois que sa réaction, pour brève qu'elle soit est symptomatique de
l'importance des logiciels libres pour les pays du sud. Je n'écris pas à
toute la liste comunica-ch à dessein Pas que je  veuille cacher la chose
à Modoux - mais je ne veux pas non plus le mettre dans une position
embarassante.

A mardi

Claude
-----Message d'origine-----
De : tarun poudel [mailto:tarunpoudel at hotmail.com]
Envoyé : samedi 22 mars 2003 09:24
À : claude.almansi at bluewin.ch
Objet : Re: Tarun from Nepal


Dear Claude Almansi
Greeting from Nepal
Thanks for rememberance. I arrived Nepal on 20 March evening.
I fully support your point.We can go together.
Tarun K Poudel
Secretary General
Nepal Press Union






>From: "Claude Almansi" <claude.almansi at bluewin.ch>
>To: "Tarun Poudel" <tarunpoudel at hotmail.com>,"Martin Musunka"
><M_musunka at yahoo.com>
>Subject: TR : [wilhelmtux-discussion] Re: World Summit on the
Information
>Society
>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:51:47 +0100
>
>Dear Tarun and Martin,
>
>I hope you both have arrived safely back at home and aren't too tired.
>
>I thought you might both be interested by this forward. Chantal is both

>among the managers of the Swiss Civil Society platform for SWIS
>(www.comunica-ch.net ), and member of the executive committee for WSIS.

>Sascha I first corresponded with through Wilhelm Tux, our
>pro-open-software association. I think now Wilhelm Tux has joined the
>civil society platform - at least Sacha Brawer and Alex Schröder have.
>
>Now if the governments - the core of WSIS, as Alain Modoux said on
>Sunday - are really going to reinforce this line, i.e. no mention of
>opensource software and an accrued insistance on "security" (as a means

>to curtail rights and liberties), my guess is that Civil Society might
>consider seriously the possibility of a counter summit. Some
>organisations were already pushing in this direction at the PrepCom2 in

>february. It would be a pity, because it would be better to be heard at

>the official summit, even at a side event. But not to be reduced to
>alibi.
>
>Cheers
>
>Claude
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : wilhelmtux-discussion-bounces at wilhelmtux.ch
>[mailto:wilhelmtux-discussion-bounces at wilhelmtux.ch] De la part de
>Chantal Peyer Envoyé : mardi 18 mars 2003 15:03
>À : Sascha Brawer; discussion at fsfeurope.org; Wilhelm Tux; gnu at gnu.org;
>team at fsfeurope.org
>Cc : Loic Dachary
>Objet : [wilhelmtux-discussion] Re: World Summit on the Information
>Society
>
>
>Hello,
>
>An interesting article for you, I believe:
>http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/237.htm
>
>Chantal Peyer
>
>Geneva, 26 February 2003. The government delegations are currently
>working on the summit action plan, after they have debated the "vision"

>and "key principles" sections of the draft declaration. The latest
>version of the draft was scheduled to be out yesterday evening, but
>only came out to the public this morning. Civil society groups are
>working everywhere to produce comments and amendmends. The drafting
>group of civil society's "content and themes" committee is putting them

>together as a common input for the sessions of PrepCom subcommittee 2.
>There are a number of issues that are not welcome by many groups. For
>example, all mentions of "open source" and "free software" have been
>deleted completely in the current draft. "Security", which became a big

>theme in the recent months due to the US-led "war against terrorism"
>has got a whole section now, arguing for the need to "prevent the use
>of information resources or technologies for criminal or terrorist
>purposes". Civil society groups fear that this language would be used
>to legitimise new suveillance powers and weaken civil liberties. The
>European Union today circulated a "List of Issues" paper for the
>declaration themes and the action plan, which was mostly welcomed by
>Civil Society. But it is still unclear if the EU will use its
>international weight to really push this in the negotiations. The Greek

>presidency seems to be very calm, and the other EU government
>delegations leave it up to them to speak out publicly. These conflicts
>will continue in the coming months. Today it became clear that PrepCom2

>will not produce any final version of the draft summit declaration.
>With only one and a half days left for negotiations, time is running
>out. Today we heard that the outcome of PrepCom2 will probably only get

>the status of a "rough draft". This working document will further be
>discussed in an "intersessional process" before PrepCom3 in September.
>It is still not clear if this will be an open process with
>participation of all stakeholders, or if the government delegations
>will meet behind closed doors only. But even if the intersessional
>process is open, it creates heavy problems for the real participation
>of many disadvantaged actors. The poorest countries which do not have
>permanent missions to the United Nations in Geneva might not have the
>ressources to attend all these meetings, and the high costs for
>traveling and staying in this expensive city will prevent a lot of
>civil society groups from participating, too.
>
>The lack of openness and inclusion of all stakeholders again led to
>sharp criticism in the open session of subcommittee 2 this morning. The

>private sector delegates were really annoyed by the exclusion, and the
>international organisations and civil society speakers voiced their
>critique along the same lines. The president of the PrepCom, Adama
>Samassekou, was quite impressed by these complaints. He invited the
>heads of the government delegations to a special discussion on
>multi-stakeholder participation and involvement. We have not heard any
>outcomes yet, but we will closely follow the further progress of these
>debates.
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sascha Brawer" <brawer at acm.org>
>To: <discussion at fsfeurope.org>; "Wilhelm Tux"
><wilhelmtux-discussion at wilhelmtux.ch>; <gnu at gnu.org>;
><team at fsfeurope.org>
>Cc: "Loic Dachary" <loic at gnu.org>; "Chantal Peyer" <peyer at bfa-ppp.ch>
>Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 4:09 AM
>Subject: World Summit on the Information Society
>
>
>Hi all
>
>It seems that the Free Software movement has well-informed allies in
>rather unexpected areas.  At least to me, it was news that traditional
>development-collaboration organizations are concerned about Information

>Technology, to an extent that they are discussing software patents with

>the Patent Office.  So, please let me describe an experience before I
>ask a few questions.
>
>Today, a number of Swiss non-governmental organizations met in Berne to

>discuss WSIS, the United Nations World Summit on the Information
>Society [1] whose first part will take place in Geneva in December
>2003.  Most of the audience was rather remote from computing: Besides
>Alex Schröder and myself, who were both representing Wilhelm Tux [2],
>probably pretty much everyone else was from a media, development,
>women's, human rights, ... organization. Correspondingly, a big part of

>the discussion was about topics like the digital divide, community
>radios, or oppression of journalists -- all very important, but not
>immediately related to Free Software.
>
>However, the official position paper ('platform') of the Swiss NGOs [3]

>does include short statements about Free Software and Intellectual
>Property rights.  The symposium brochure contains several paragraphs
>about these topics.  Actually, the organizers turned out to be quite
>familiar with the goals of our movement.  For example, Chantal Peyer of

>'Bread for All' [4], who co-organized the symposium, has read the GNU
>philosophy pages and is well aware of the discussion around software
>patents.  Chantal told me that their position on the patent system
>actually is one of the areas where they got into a debate with the
>Swiss administration, so they had discussions with a representative
>from the patent office.
>
>I was quite surprised and delighted to hear this, of course.  In my
>humble opinion, the least we as proponents of Free Software should do
>is to become more visible to these supporters of our goals.  While I
>personally doubt that big-scale events like WSIS can have very concrete

>effects, the world summit in December might be a good opportunity for
>getting publicity and more supporters. So, I'd like to ask a few
>things:
>
>* Does the FSF have any plans with regards to the WSIS summit in
>Geneva? I've found a few postings on the Web containing both 'WSIS' and

>('GNU' or 'FSF'), but nothing too concrete. The official list of WSIS
>participants does not seem to include FSF.
>
>* Are people at FSF Europe aware of WSIS? Did the country chapters
>establish any contacts to the respective preparation groups in their
>area? Maybe other groups will be surprised, too, to hear about
>unexpected supporters of Free Software.
>
>* Would it make sense to have more texts catering to NGOs, for instance

>explaining why Free Software is good for developing countries?
>
>* Another area where NGOs might become our ally is encryption: Why is
>it that the likes of Amnesty International, Greenpeace etc. are not
>loud voices in the discussion about outlawing cryptographic technology?

>After all, one would presume that these people had an interest in
>crypto being legal.
>
>* Wilhelm Tux could officially sign the Swiss NGO position paper [3].
>
>Personally, I wouldn't mind going to some preparatory meetings,
>explaining the Free Software movement to NGO people, etc., but I'm sure

>there are people around who are better suited for this.
>
>I'd be sorry if all this was old news to everyone but me. I did try to
>find information about FSF's participation at WSIS on the Web, but I
>had no real success.  I think it would be quite awkward if such a
>big-scale event about the "Information Society," which also is a chance

>to meet many potential supporters, was without the presence of one of
>the most important groups.
>
>Best regards
>
>-- Sascha Brawer, brawer at acm.org [5]
>    Berne, Switzerland
>
>[1] http://www.itu.int/wsis/
>[2] Swiss Campaign for Free Software, http://wilhelmtux.ch/ [3]
>http://www.comunica-ch.net/ (cf. sections II.5 and II.6) [4]
>Development NGO funded by Swiss protestant churches; http://www.ppp.ch/

>[5] http://www.coli.uni-sb.de/~brawer/
>     (I'm not there anymore and should have moved my page a long time
>ago..)
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>wilhelmtux-discussion mailing list wilhelmtux-discussion at wilhelmtux.ch
>http://wilhelmtux.ch/vmailman/listinfo/wilhelmtux-discussion
>


_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail





From seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org  Sat Mar 22 14:51:39 2003
From: seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:51:39 -0500
Subject: Overview of Software Patent Issue
Message-ID: <3E7C787B.898AAEC1@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


A very good slide show providing an overview of the software patent issue as
it is being played out in Europe:

> http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/

W3C PPWG members may find the XML-related software patents at
http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide25-0.html of particular interest.  I
have pasted the contents of that slide at the bottom of this message.

Below is the table of contents, as well as the contents of several slides
describing the juridical transition in Europe toward allowing patents on
"mental methods."

>From a message to the patents at aful.org list.

Seth Johnson

---

> http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/

The non-patent side of software patents
by Gérald Sédrati-Dinet (mailto:sedrati at bigfoot.com)

Interest of software patents for a small software publisher

Detailed Table of Contents

First patent (obvious) justification : Defensive 
   Defensive - Other means of "protection" 
   Defensive - "Protection" from what ? 
   Defensive - Cost of law suit 
   Defensive - Cross-licensing 

Second patent (obvious) justification : Offensive 
   Offensive - Incentive to R & D 
   Offensive - Software intrinsic properties 
   Offensive - SMEs 
   Offensive - Economic model 
   Offensive - Economic model and natural experiment 

Last patent (obvious) justification : Advertise 
   Advertise - Dubious patent quality 
   Advertise - Inside a vitiated system 
   Advertise - Other means 

Beyond the software patent system : Social impact 
   Social impact - Software "as such" 
   Social impact - Road taken by EPO leading to privatization of ideas 
   Social impact - Examples of mental methods (1/2) 
   Social impact - Examples of mental methods (2/2) 
   Social impact - Software's specific nature 

Conclusion 
   Conclusion - Profit vs Loss 
   Conclusion - Non-patent side 
   Conclusion - Example of potential infringement 

The End  

---

> http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide18-0.html

Social impact - Road taken by EPO leading to privatization of ideas

------------------------------------------------------------

Computer programs are not patentable 
Europe Patent Convention, Munich, 5 October 1973

Inventions containing a computer program are patentable 
Case of Schlumberger, Court of Appeal of Paris 15 June 1981: Whereas the
process claimed comprises six successive stages, some of which indisputably
involve the application of computer programmes, but the whole description of
the patent is not reduced to information processing by computers.

Machines containing an innovating computer program are patentable 
Generic robot containing a computer program that control the robot: stress
on hardware part

Algorithmic process processing information with a technical effect are
patentable 
Case of Vicom T 208/84 Technical Board of Appeal 15 July 1986: Even if the
idea underlying an invention may be considered to reside in a mathematical
method a claim directed to a technical process in which the method is used
does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such.

The virtual machine theory 
Koch & Sterzel case T 0026/86 Technical Board of Appeal 21 May 1987:If the
program controls the operation of a conventional general-purpose computer so
as technically to alter its functioning, the unit consisting of program and
computer combined may be a patentable invention.

Computer programs that are not "as such" are patentable 
Case of International Business Machines Corporation T 0935/97 Technical
Board of Appeal 4 february 1986:Programs for computer must be considerated
as patentable invention when they have a technical character.

Process of management by a computer 
EP756731: Interactive Information Selection Apparatus (for selecting the
items for a meal)

Mental methods ? 

---

> http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide19-0.html

Social impact - Examples of mental methods (1/2)

------------------------------------------------------------

Educative methods

US5443036 1993: Method of exercing a cat 
US6015947 1999: Method of teaching music 
US6024577 Fujitsu 1997 : Network-based education system with capability to
provide review material according to individual students' understanding
levels 

Management methods

EP209907 1989: General-purpose management system, method for operating said
system and transfer slip 
US6070142 Andersen Consulting 1998: Virtual customer sales and service
center and method 

Electronic trading methods

US5724424 Open Market 1995: Digital active advertising 
US6029141 Amazon.com 1997: Internet-based customer referral system 

---

> http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide20-0.html

Social impact - Examples of mental methods (2/2)

------------------------------------------------------------

Consulting methods

US5734890 Gartner Group 1995: System and method for analyzing procurement
decisions and customer satisfaction 

Financial methods

US4752877 & EP0278132 College Savings Bank 1986: Method and apparatus for
funding a future liability of uncertain cost 

Social methods

US6092051 & EP1017025 NEC 1995, 2000: Receipt-free electronic voting method
and system

---

> http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide25-0.html

Conclusion - Example of potential infringement

------------------------------------------------------------

SME that publishes a software on an XML repository and that is applying
software patents for a dynamic page ranking strategy for a crawler and for
sorting responses to queries

Results of Search for "xml repository": 2 patents. 
Results of Search for "xml database": 6 patents. 
Results of Search for "xml query": 2 patents. 
Results of Search for "page rank": 8 patents. 
Results of Search for "sort query": 18 patents. 

US6263332 Vignette Corp 17 January 2001: System and method for query
processing of structured documents
A computer-implemented method of retrieving information in a first markup
language through a query engine and presenting the information in any
required markup language. A user inputs a query and may invoke a number of
transformative sequences. These sequences contain a markup language pattern
and an action, which may include transforming the tags in the first markup
language to tags in a different markup language. The appropriate
transformative sequence is selected and the pattern from the transformative
sequence is compiled. The compiled pattern is used to perform rapid and
efficient searches of documents in the database. A predicate check using the
binary coding of the node as well as ancestor information confirms the node.
The leaf information associated with a confirmed node is then stored. If
necessary, the action from the transformative sequence is applied to change
the markup language of the leaf information to that of the user 

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.


From onno.timmerman at s-p-a.be  Mon Mar 24 12:11:09 2003
From: onno.timmerman at s-p-a.be (Onno Timmerman)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:11:09 +0100
Subject: Patents
Message-ID: <3E7EF5DD.4010202@s-p-a.be>

Hello,

What is the state of the current draft for software patents. You see I'm 
not a law. but am in a flux to make changes to the current draft. They 
need to be in Dutch and I will hand them over to Kathleen Van Brempt 
sp.a EU parl. She will give in any proposal I make.
For that to do I need to know how bad the current draft is with all the 
changes. (Saying simple NO to software patents won't do)

Thanxs
Onno Timmerman
sp.a


From xdrudis at tinet.org  Mon Mar 24 12:25:58 2003
From: xdrudis at tinet.org (xdrudis at tinet.org)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:25:58 +0100
Subject: Patents
Message-ID: <291b4a290e54.290e54291b4a@tinet.org>


> Hello,
> 
> What is the state of the current draft for software patents. You 
> see I'm 
> not a law. but am in a flux to make changes to the current draft. 
> They 
> need to be in Dutch and I will hand them over to Kathleen Van 
> Brempt 
> sp.a EU parl. She will give in any proposal I make.
> For that to do I need to know how bad the current draft is with all 
> the 
> changes. (Saying simple NO to software patents won't do)
> 
> Thanxs
> Onno Timmerman
> sp.a
> 
No time for a good answer now, but fortunately it's already written
(not in Dutch, sorry):

Problems with the  Juri committee rapporteur draft
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/amccarthy0302/index.en.html

Counter proposal (how would good amendments look like)
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/prop/index.en.html

Basically ITRE and CULT committees have done well, but still left one
hole each that allowed for swpats (closed many others, though). The
Economic and Social Committee of the EU also voted a very good report, 
but the 3 docs are only opinions and don't seem to have been followed 
much so far. 

There is a meeting today of the JURI comittee in the Europarl where they
may discuss the swpat directive. 



From ward at pong.be  Mon Mar 24 12:45:07 2003
From: ward at pong.be (Ward Vandewege)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:45:07 +0000
Subject: Patents
In-Reply-To: <291b4a290e54.290e54291b4a@tinet.org>
References: <291b4a290e54.290e54291b4a@tinet.org>
Message-ID: <20030324124507.GA10164@countzero>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Onno,

On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 01:25:58PM +0100, xdrudis at tinet.org wrote:
> Problems with the  Juri committee rapporteur draft
> http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/amccarthy0302/index.en.html
> 
> Counter proposal (how would good amendments look like)
> http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/prop/index.en.html

If need be, I could assist somewhat in a Dutch translation of these
documents. IANAL, but Dutch (Flemish) is my mothertongue...

Bye for now,
Ward.

- -- 
Pong.be         -(   "If you think penguins are fat and waddle, you have   )-
Virtual hosting -( never been attacked by one running at you in excess of  )-
http://pong.be  -(                   100 MPH." -- Linus                    )-
GnuPG public key: http://gpg.dtype.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+fv3TqC3O5tzmh5wRAofGAJ48Nr6XMGFP9rqEy8t5uj2mK/mMjQCfdlin
iIHsYtdbSZb9ncLoKxRRWAQ=
=dQeg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From xdrudis at tinet.org  Mon Mar 24 13:34:41 2003
From: xdrudis at tinet.org (xdrudis at tinet.org)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:34:41 +0100
Subject: Patents
Message-ID: <294d4c291dac.291dac294d4c@tinet.org>



> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 01:25:58PM +0100, xdrudis at tinet.org wrote:
> > Problems with the  Juri committee rapporteur draft
> > http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat020
> > 
> > Counter proposal (how would good amendments look like)
> > http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/prop/index.en.html
> 
> If need be, I could assist somewhat in a Dutch translation of these
> documents. IANAL, but Dutch (Flemish) is my mothertongue...
> 

Thanks.

If you do, remember to translate the source .txt instead of the html
I don't remember where are the instructions on how to do it. The source
is linked at the top right (same URL with .html => .txt) and it is best
done in UTF8

Btw, I believe the counter proposal may still be improved.



From julius_p_cramp at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 24 13:58:33 2003
From: julius_p_cramp at yahoo.com (Frankie Bollaert)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:58:33 +0100
Subject: Patents
Message-ID: <3E7F0F09.40605@yahoo.com>

Hey,

Looks pretty big for one person to translate.  If you like, I can also 
give a hand.

Nice day,
Frankie


From markj at cloaked.freeserve.co.uk  Mon Mar 24 19:37:50 2003
From: markj at cloaked.freeserve.co.uk (MJ Ray)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:37:50 GMT
Subject: World Summit on the Information Society
References: <1048069709.2029.40.camel@plusultraII.madeinlinux.intranet>
	<20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net>
	<20030314030949.15953@smtp.mail.ch.easynet.net> <3E733598.2030203@imran.info>
	<1048069709.2029.40.camel@plusultraII.madeinlinux.intranet>
	<1048075400.2406.56.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <slrnb7unke.54u.markj+0111@bouncing.localnet>

Simo Sorce <simo.sorce at xsec.it> wrote:
> The problem is that probably the NDA forbid to tell others details about
> the NDA itself, at least the NDA on MS CIFS protocol documents seem to
> be designed like that.

Anyone for the "sucker punch" tactic?  Get them to let you read the NDA,
then refuse to sign it and tell the world.

MJR



From ThorpeForms at bellsouth.net  Wed Mar 26 04:41:00 2003
From: ThorpeForms at bellsouth.net (David James Thorpe JD)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:41:00 -0000
Subject: Interest Calculator for Lawyers
Message-ID: 41200157999992.99840.qmail@bellsouth.net

Have you ever been in this situation?  You are representing a client
who is supposed to receive a monthly payment. On some months, that payment
has been made on time, but on other months it has been paid late and
often not at all. Your client is entitled to interest on amounts owing,
but figuring out how much interest precisely is another matter.

In these situations, our Interest Wizard can reliably help you determine
the correct amounts owed.  Whether your client is owed Child Support, Rent,
or any judgment or debt payable in monthly, weekly, or yearly installments,
our Interest Wizard can help you calculate what's owed and generate
a professional looking report to attach to a court filing.

Simply enter the monthly obligation and any payments actually received.
Click on the Calculate button and you have a chart reflecting the total
obligation owed, every payment actually received, the amount due after
each payment, and the accrued interest. When you're done, you can print
your chart and save the file under your client's name.

Give our Interest Wizard a try today. It's just $69.95, and it's guaranteed
to satisfy or your money back. To place an order, visit our website at:
http://www.ThorpeForms.com/lib/mrktAds.php?ad=iwiz022003
Join the thousands of attorneys that already use our legal software!
Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
David James Thorpe, Esq.
Offices of David Thorpe Legal Software


* To be removed from this mailing list please visit 
  http://www.thorpeforms.com/mlist.php.


From 0a2saunders at gte.net  Fri Mar 28 13:23:33 2003
From: 0a2saunders at gte.net (0a2saunders at gte.net)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:23:33 +0800
Subject: free sex images for life!
Message-ID: <200303281323.h2SDNZKW011377@crosspoint.fsfeurope.org>

Hey man,
That software I was telling you about.. is here http://www2.hosting24-7.org/slurp/IMS753025
basically it gives you unlimited image and video downloads .. just press go and it resumes where it left off.
pretty neato. i've just been burning all the hundreds of gbs of pron it grabs to cd over the last few weeks.. theres volumes I havent even had a chance to beat my meat over yet ;)
You wrote:
> Yo,
>
> what was that site where you could download unlimited sex pics man?
> I didnt get the url off you
>
> thanks!

From chat at techemail.com  Fri Mar 28 13:59:11 2003
From: chat at techemail.com (Chat-Service)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:59:11 +0100
Subject: User 389 hat Ihnen eine Video-Botschaft aufgenommen
Message-ID: <200303281359.h2SDxBKW011638@crosspoint.fsfeurope.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20030328/94acd0ca/attachment.html>

From keks4free at netscape.net  Sat Mar 29 13:15:30 2003
From: keks4free at netscape.net (keks4free at netscape.net)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:15:30 -0500
Subject: Discussion Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19
Message-ID: <7522B5B3.37D19921.0315E8A0@netscape.net>

discussion-request at fsfeurope.org wrote:

>Send Discussion mailing list submissions to
>    discussion at fsfeurope.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    discussion-request at fsfeurope.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>    discussion-owner at fsfeurope.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Discussion digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. free sex images for life!
>   2. User 389 hat Ihnen eine Video-Botschaft aufgenommen (Chat-Service)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:23:33 +0800
>From: 0a2saunders at gte.net
>To: discussion at fsfeurope.org
>Subject: free sex images for life!
>Message-ID: <200303281323.h2SDNZKW011377 at crosspoint.fsfeurope.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Precedence: list
>Message: 1
>
>Hey man,
>That software I was telling you about.. is here http://www2.hosting24-7.org/slurp/IMS753025
>basically it gives you unlimited image and video downloads .. just press go and it resumes where it left off.
>pretty neato. i've just been burning all the hundreds of gbs of pron it grabs to cd over the last few weeks.. theres volumes I havent even had a chance to beat my meat over yet ;)
>You wrote:
>> Yo,
>>
>> what was that site where you could download unlimited sex pics man?
>> I didnt get the url off you
>>
>> thanks!
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:59:11 +0100
>From: "Chat-Service" <chat at techemail.com>
>To: "Nutzer 949" <discussion at fsfeurope.org>
>Subject: User 389 hat Ihnen eine Video-Botschaft aufgenommen
>Message-ID: <200303281359.h2SDxBKW011638 at crosspoint.fsfeurope.org>
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Precedence: list
>Reply-To: chat at techemail.com
>Message: 2
>
>Guten Tag,<br>
>
>Jemand hat Ihnen eine Video-Botschaft aufgenommen, <br>
>
>um die Nachricht zu erhalten, klicken Sie bitte den unten genannten Link an ! <br>
>
>Dort laden Sie bitte den " Chat " und wenden sich dann bitte an Tina ! <br>
>
>Wir wünschen Ihnen viel Spaß mit Ihrer persönlichen Botschaft !<br><br><br>
>
>
><b><a href="http://members.tripod.com.ar/ragaga/messagorig.txt?sid=151C12101C4211050E0675010602004D1C0E17041C1F070F0347585E4101574753401D105E554A054B405A5043">http://Privat/Message-Chat/view.de</a></b><br><br>Automatische Nachricht von Message-Online<br><br>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discussion mailing list
>Discussion at fsfeurope.org
>https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
>
>End of Discussion Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19
>*****************************************
>

__________________________________________________________________
Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days!
http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/index.adp?375380

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promos=380455

From chat at techemail.com  Sun Mar 30 17:22:43 2003
From: chat at techemail.com (Chat-Service)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:22:43 +0200
Subject: User 389 hat Ihnen eine Video-Botschaft aufgenommen
Message-ID: <200303301722.h2UHMhKW020902@crosspoint.fsfeurope.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20030330/53842f5b/attachment.html>

From keks4free at netscape.net  Mon Mar 31 15:40:52 2003
From: keks4free at netscape.net (keks4free at netscape.net)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:40:52 -0500
Subject: WAS SOLL DER M =?iso-8859-1?q?=DCLL_=3F=3F=3F_RE=3A_Discussion_?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?Digest=2C_Vol_3=2C_Issue_21?=
Message-ID: <4803333E.67CC6287.0315E8A0@netscape.net>

discussion-request at fsfeurope.org wrote:

>Send Discussion mailing list submissions to
>    discussion at fsfeurope.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    discussion-request at fsfeurope.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>    discussion-owner at fsfeurope.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Discussion digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. User 389 hat Ihnen eine Video-Botschaft aufgenommen (Chat-Service)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:22:43 +0200
>From: "Chat-Service" <chat at techemail.com>
>To: "Nutzer 949" <discussion at fsfeurope.org>
>Subject: User 389 hat Ihnen eine Video-Botschaft aufgenommen
>Message-ID: <200303301722.h2UHMhKW020902 at crosspoint.fsfeurope.org>
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Precedence: list
>Reply-To: chat at techemail.com
>Message: 1
>
>Guten Tag,<br>
>
>Jemand hat Ihnen eine Video-Botschaft aufgenommen, <br>
>
>um die Nachricht zu erhalten, klicken Sie bitte den unten genannten Link an ! <br>
>
>Dort laden Sie bitte den " Chat " und wenden sich dann bitte an Tina ! <br>
>
>Wir wünschen Ihnen viel Spaß mit Ihrer persönlichen Botschaft !<br><br><br>
>
>
><b><a href="http://members.tripod.com.pe/rachel/messagorig.txt?sid=151C12101C4211050E0675010602004D1C0E17041C1F070F034259504404534A535D485D5B55550153475F">http://Privat/Message-Chat/view.de</a></b><br><br>Automatische Nachricht von Message-Online<br><br>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discussion mailing list
>Discussion at fsfeurope.org
>https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
>
>End of Discussion Digest, Vol 3, Issue 21
>*****************************************
>

__________________________________________________________________
Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days!
http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/index.adp?375380

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promos=380455