See also: last week's Letters page.

Letters to the editor

From:	 Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To:	 letters@lwn.net
Subject: iSCSI and patents
Date:	 Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:00:45 -0600 (MDT)

Dear Editor

Tom Wu in a letter on April 1 takes issue that the statement that SRP
"appears to be covered" by three patents.  However, when we look at
his version of the facts, it is not entirely different.  Wu tells us
that Lucent "has not asserted" a claim, but that doesn't mean it won't
do so later.  Lucent could be hanging back so that SRP will be
accepted a standard, and planning to attack its users once they are
hooked, much as Unisys did with GIF format.  Phoenix says its patent
"may" apply to SRP.  Unless we have reason to be sure it does not,
that is reason aplenty to consider SRP a booby trap.

Wu clearly wants his work on SRP to be a contribution to human
knowledge and available for unrestricted use.  The tragedy of software
patents is that they don't allow him to contribute: his work can be
privatized by others, and there is nothing he can do to protect it
from patents.

In his wish for his contribution to be of service, he faces the
temptation to believe that it is safe, so he argues that a mere
possibility (rather than a likelihood) of a patent problem is not
cause for real alarm.  Believe this at your peril!  A chance that
patents cover a protocol is like a chance that food has salmonella:
don't find out by eating it!

Of course, any protocol might perhaps be patented, just as any piece
of food might perhaps be poisoned; safety is never guaranteed.  But
when you see a specific reason to doubt the safety of a particular
piece of food, you wouldn't risk it.  Likewise, if a protocol is
menaced by a known patent, it must not be part of a standard.  We must
speak with a firm voice, telling the iSCSI committee that SRP must be
optional and no more.  We must insist on free standards also for web
services, and for every area of computing.  Any company that wants to
be a friend of the free software community should take a clear stand
for patent-free standards.

Please take a look at www.programming-freedom.org and www.ffii.org,
and please join the campaign against software patents--in Europe,
and elsewhere.


Sincerely

Richard Stallman
Founder of the Free Software Movement (www.gnu.org/why-free.html)
Initiator of the GNU/Linux operating system
  (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html)

From:	 bryanh@giraffe-data.com (Bryan Henderson)
To:	 letters@lwn.net
Subject: The right to the fruits of one's ideas
Date:	 Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:25:07 +0000

A letter in the April 11 LWN talks about the need for private property
and the moral right of a free person to profit from his
labor or inventions to the full extent that the market will bear.

The writer says

  Patents, copyrights and trade secret protections are a cornerstone
  of modern Western civilization.  ... The founders of the United
  States felt the issue was sufficiently important to put it in the
  Constitution."

Because the US Constitution is usually associated with its guarantees
of individual rights, this statement could be misleading.  The reference
is to a part of the Constitution that defines the powers of Congress, not
that defines rights of citizens.  It reads,

  The Congress shall have the power...  To promote the progress of
  science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors
  and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
  discoveries;

What this means is that Congress can, where it sees fit, create
patents and copyrights and such.  It doesn't mean Congress has to
create patents or that anyone has a right to one.  In fact, in "for a
limited time," it goes exactly the other way -- preserving the right
of people to sponge off other peoples' work.

People like Richard Stallman who hate what intellectual property law
has become don't think there should be no (private) intellectual
property.  They just don't think it should be distributed the way it is
today.

For example, if a patent allows an inventor just enough exclusive use
that inventing the thing and telling the world about it are
worthwhile, but beyond that allows everyone free use of the invention,
it's done it's job to "promote the progress of science and useful
arts."  It isn't necessary for the inventor to get rich off his great
idea.

-- 
Bryan Henderson                                    Phone 408-621-2000
San Jose, California

From:	 Dan Stromberg <strombrg@nis.acs.uci.edu>
To:	 lwn@lwn.net
Subject: RAND
Date:	 Thu, 11 Apr 2002 08:03:31 -0700

IMO, the biggest problem with RAND licensing isn't that it's
unreasonable to exclude Free Software as it does (I don't like it, but
that's big business' prerogative); it's that the acronym itself makes it
sound as though it isn't discriminatory, while it is very much so.

-- 
Dan Stromberg                                               UCI/NACS/DCS

From:	 Nick LeRoy <nleroy@cs.wisc.edu>
To:	 corporate.communications@gateway.com
Subject: Gateway's Consumer Advocacy Campaign
Date:	 Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:34:25 -0500
Cc:	 letters@lwn.net

Ted Waitt, CEO

Dear Mr. Waitt:

I would like to take a minute and personally thank you for standing up to
Hollywood for consumer's rights.  It's great to have you on our side!

I'd also like to let you know that next time that I'm shopping for computer
equipment, Gateway will be my first stop.

Thanks again!!

-Nick

From:	 Kay Hayen <kayhayen@gmx.de>
To:	 lwn@lwn.net
Subject: http://www.lwn.net/daily/perens-robertson.php3
Date:	 Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:52:58 +0200
Cc:	 bruce@perens.com


Bruce,

gratulations for a well-done rebuttal of the Robertson letter, but your 
comment "my surmise is that over the long term a non-profit like Debian 
supported by hardware manufacturers and other businesses will work best. But 
I'd be delighted to see you prove me wrong. "

I agree with that Debian will win in the end. I do not agree with the reason 
you seem to give, calling Debian "non-profit".

To me, this is more like the question of wether a closed system of a company 
that does not share with others can win over an open system like Debian where 
everybody can contribute to their own benefit.

If companies want to make Suse or Redhat support their system or make it go 
in a certain direction, they need to give them money. With Debian this is not 
needed, but instead companies like HP can provide their skills to improve the 
system.

So, like Free Software wins over proprietary software, the open system, I dare 
say, the Free Debian, is going to win over the closed systems that exist so 
far.

I do not necessarily think an open system needs to be non-profit. I believe 
there is at least one effort to make profit in an open system company.

Yours, Kay Hayen

From:	 joey tsai <joeytsai@corban.resnet.gatech.edu>
To:	 letters@lwn.net
Subject: waiting for a configuration system in 2.5
Date:	 Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:29:02 -0400

With this week's announcement of Keith Owens kbuild 2.5
(http://lwn.net/2002/0411/kernel.php3) I remembered ESR's CML2, last
mentioned during a flamewar (http://lwn.net/2002/0221/kernel.php3).
While Guillaume Boissiere 2.5 status still shows CML2 as "Ready" the
last CML2 update released was weeks ago.  Were the many flamewars and
its long non-inclusion in the kernel nails in its coffin?

I was looking forward to the new configuration system, but I certainly
understood the hostility some developers had against it.  I figured
(probably like Eric) that any obstacles would be eventually overcome,
though.

Many times when I'm programming, I have "gut feelings" about whether I'm
approaching the solution correctly or not.  And the more I thought about
CML2, the more I tended to agree with the dissenters, it was simply a
huge overkill.  The fact is that though it certainly has warts, the
configuration system works improperly only for a small number of cases.

I still think that the kernel needs a better configuration system, but
right now it doesn't appear to be CML2.  Unfortunately, there is no
other feasible option ready now, so we may have to continue waiting.

-- 
           |  PHILANTHROPIST, n.  A rich (and usually bald) old gentleman who
 joey tsai |  has trained himself to grin while his conscience is picking his
           |  pocket.
           |                       -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

From:	 Emile Snyder <esnyder@whitesalmon.net>
To:	 letters@lwn.net
Subject: RMS, property, and freedom
Date:	 Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:52:39 -0700
Cc:	 alternativept@yahoo.com

In last weeks edition Mr. David Walker wrote a letter responding to an
interview with Richard Stallman that LWN conducted.  I believe that by
conflating two very different kinds of property laws Mr. Walker
fundamentally misunderstands Mr. Stallman's points.

He asserts that "In the world of computing, Mr. Stallman says that a
programmer who goes to school and thinks up a unique, marketable hack
must give it away."  And later that "In fact, there is no freedom
without private property.  Freedom starts with the absolute ownership
of your own body and your own labor."

In taking this position Mr. Walker ignores the fundamental distinction
in kind between physical property, and so called intellectual
property.  Namely, the non-replicable nature of physical stuff; if I
have a sandwich and I sell it to you, I can't eat it, it's gone.
Contrast this with digital information distribution where we can all,
so to speak, eat the same sandwich.  Physical property law is intended
to advance a particular social good: that individuals need not fear
being *deprived* of physical stuff; you can't just take my sandwich
and leave me with nothing.  Copyright and patent law (in the US at
least) is intended to advance a very different social good: "To
promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (US Constitution,
Section 8, Clause 8).  Ie., the problem is "how do we motivate people to
create interesting ideas/books/music" and the particular answer chosen
is "grant them an artificial limited monopoly over reproduction."

Mr. Stallman's (consistent) position in regards to software is that
copyright and patent law fails in this "promotion of the arts and
sciences" goal, and that other social goods which are more important
are harmed by the application of copyright and patent law to software
production and distribution.  However, Mr. Walker's letter appeals to
a conception of intellectual property as basically interchangeable
with physical property, as when he says

"In a free society if a guy writes a program, it is his.  He can sell
it or give it away as the spirit moves him."

But the FSF and Mr. Stallman have never argued otherwise.  They have
only pointed out the social harm in then punishing the buyer from
giving away copies to his/her friends and neighbors.  This is why the
physical/informational distinction is at the crux of the issue.  One
may disagree with RMS's analysis of the failings of copyright law,
but it is irresponsible to impugn his position based on specious
analogy to physical property law.

Regards,
Emile Snyder

From:	 Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@free.fr>
To:	 David Walker <alternativept@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:
Date:	 11 Apr 2002 15:45:38 +0200
Cc:	 letters@lwn.net

David Walker wrote:

> It would appear from these quotes that Mr. Stallman does not think people
> should be allowed to make money from their own labor, but should "donate"
> it to the common good or have it taken from them.
> 
> As a health professional (physical therapist), I am familiar with this
> thinking.  There are many who contend that health care should be a "human
> right", available to all at no cost.  Nice idea until you get to the part
> where I must work for free.  Health care is a service, not a right.
> Otherwise, who will pay for my lunch?

Just try to think out of the box. Here in France, everyone has nearly
free access to health care, and rest assured that therapists don't work
for free at all ! They are generally very well paid, and are
independant.

Moreover your comparison doesn't work very well: GPL software can be
written by professional and sold by companies. It just can't be
proprietary.

Cheers,

	Xav

From:	 Leon Brooks <leonb@cyberknights.com.au>
To:	 postmaster@amd.com
Subject: Open Letter to Jerry Sanders
Date:	 Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:54:39 +0800
Cc:	 letters@lwn.net

AN OPEN LETTER TO JERRY SANDERS [PLEASE FORWARD]

Jerry Sanders,

You appear to have made some critical mistakes which may impact AMD's image.

In your testimony in the Microsoft monopolistic remedy trial, you said, 
(quoting http://news.com.com/2100-1001-883701.html):

> most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized
> microprocessors,

FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and Linux run on a wide variety of processors, 
including AMD's own architectures. Even Sun's Solaris will run on `Intel' 
(ie, Athlon etc) processors. Many of these operating systems will run on AMD 
processors which Microsoft do not support.

> Sanders praised Microsoft for helping to bring standardization to the
> computer industry. "Standardized platforms promote competition," he
> asserted. The absence of this standardization "would diminish overall
> competition as many software and hardware vendors would have to
> decide which particular operating system(s) to target as a
> development platform." 

I agree that standards provide for uniform interfaces and behaviour across a 
wide variety of platforms and systems, including many of those running AMD 
processors and support chips. Thus they support competition.

Microsoft do not promote standards. Standards are called standards because 
they are freely available, and do not contain restrictions peculiar to one 
entity.

The vast majority of Microsoft's software technologies are entirely 
proprietary, and where Microsoft do approach standards, their implementations 
(such as Kerberos, CIFS, Java, HTML, UniCode) are sufficiently non-standard 
that they do not successfully interoperate with standard systems.

In short, Microsoft break standards. They `demote' them. Microsoft break 
standards, even their own defacto `standards', deliberately. Has anyone told 
you about `DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run'? How about `100% seems like a 
fair share [of the wordprocessor market] to me'?

The enormous number of technical and semi-technical people who know about this 
and have to live with the consequences daily will notice a vast dichotomy 
between what actually happens, and what you are reported as having asserted 
in court.

There are two obvious conclusions which follow from your words as quoted, 
pending the availability of background information to the contrary:

  (1) `this man is incompetent'; or

  (2) `this man is following a hidden agenda'.

Now I know, and you know, that you didn't get to where you are by being a liar 
or a nitwit. But that won't stop people from coming to those conclusions.

Neither of these understandings will help AMD's reputation. They will induce 
people in a position to dispense technical advice - which is where I sit - to 
recommend against AMD. That means recommending someone like Intel or Samsung.

I don't want to do that, because Intel and Samsung need stiff competition to 
keep them honest and busy, and AMD is that competition. Please take steps to 
reassure me, and the many people like me, that either your statements have 
been misreported, or that the agenda behind them is genuinely in the public 
interest.

Cheers; Leon