LICENSING: Are you dead set on GPL3?

Really good video and perhaps brings up another point. If we dropped GPL and some larger companies did embrace the tech, what would they do? What they do is patent like crazy all around their ‘improvements’ particularly in the USA where patents have gone mad and there seems incredible bias towards ‘citizens’ patents as though innovation respects borders. I believe the patent systems are very politically motivated now.

If we stay GPL and keep the patents (which are very broad indeed) then maybe we have protection against this for the community (including large corps who become part of that community, but in a forced fairness way). I think of the phone industry and it is a total innovation killer there, I don’t want to see the decentralised Internet doing that.

5 Likes

Well said!
My comment was supportive of your arguments - I just suggested to use the word rights instead of freedoms, but on second thought that’s not much of an improvement… Maybe “to engage in free trade” would be.

Well, ridiculing people doesn’t harm them, but sometimes the critics are over the top.

1 Like

One way or another, they are going to be working against what I believe SAFE stands for.

This is just the thing. What exactly does SAFE stand for? Or rather, what exactly is the purpose of MaidSafe? I believe the core purpose of MaidSafe is on the front page of the website:

a fully decentralized platform on which application developers can build
decentralized applications. The network is made up by individual users
who contribute storage, computing power and bandwidth to form a
world-wide autonomous system.

THAT is the real mission and purpose of MaidSafe. Let’s look at the worry that @dirvine has of Microsoft or Apple implementing their own decentralized network. The real issue is Microsoft or Apple taking on the idea of MaidSafe, not the actual MaidSafe code. Let’s face the truth that I think we can all agree with: Microsoft, Apple, Google, and the like, all have more than enough resources available to code their own implementation of a decentralized network, in a much smaller timeframe. You’ve already put the idea out there, and it’s for everyone to do what they want with it, and those with the resources will do it, whether they use your codebase or not.

So let’s look at the facts:

  1. A large competitor like Apple can create their own closed-source network if they really wanted to.
  2. Even smaller private companies can and will take your code and use it illegally, and they can do this because they will make it closed source.
  3. If the above statements are true, then the effectiveness of the GPL is minimal at best, naught at worst.
  4. If the above statements are true, and the GPL license is implemented, then its only purpose is to “send a message” about freedom. Its actual purpose will not be actualized.

This may be delving more into the realm of philosophy, but I really do feel that the world moves forward in its evolution from acts of free will, and never through coersion, whether political, religious, or what have you. We all want to “push” the evolution of mankind through the use of force, such as pushing for social laws that we believe are moral, but the fact is, humans will only become moral when they want to be. A religious christian/muslim/jew will never get people to do what they do by forcing it down others’ throats. But, people will become christian/muslim/jewish if they choose to be.

So that begs the question: if not by force, how do we change the world, how do we make it evolve faster towards our ideals? The answer is simple: spreading the ideas freely, and doing that by being the change you want to see. Unfortunately, as much as we want there to be, there are no shortcuts. Humanity must evolve at its own pace.

A Buddhist that wants to spread peace and love can do so only by himself portraying peace and love; by making others gravitate to him and think “wow, I want to be like that man; he looks peaceful and happy.” That is the true way.

My personal suggestion: let anyone use the MaidSafe code for any reason. If it becomes wildly successful (and it certainly has the potential to be!), you will have shown the world what it is like and how to be a) 100% open source b) crowdfunded and c) extremely profitable at the same time. What can be more powerful than that? You will do more for the push for open source than any license ever could, and it wouldn’t be at the cost of alienating other open source projects due to personal beliefs. It’ll be a win-win for everybody.

Cheers :slight_smile:

2 Likes

As for this:

MaidSafe has patents on open source components anyway, no? I don’t see how closed vs open source will change anything regarding patents. They can patent the “improvement” parts no matter what license you have.

Like you said, the whole patent system is mad. Don’t seek logic in it; you may have to fight patents regardless of what you do :smile:

This is a load of bs. Maidsafe is not forcing anything down peoples throats. Its their choice to use the code and if they don’t like the licensing then they don’t have to use it. No ones forcing anything down peoples throats. If someone wants to illegally use the code then that’s their choice, they just have to accept the risks associated with doing so. (I could safely say that the closed source version will not be “Private, Secure and Free” in my eyes.)

Maidsafe should also have the freedom to choose what licensing they want to choose, they shouldn’t be “forced” to choose one that suits you or the majority. Otherwise you are straight contradicting yourself as it seems you are trying to convince maidsafe to go one way as opposed to another. Whatever happened to show by example as opposed to persuasion or force.

2 Likes

Nah, they’re not forcing anything down peoples’ throats, that’s poor wording. I was more referring to David’s words “If we can ‘force’ or aid the push towards openness then it may be worth considering.” I was just stating that no one is going to open source their project by force because of a license; they will open source source it simply because that’s what they want to do. For example, I’d say that Linux and its derivatives are successful in promoting open source not because of their licenses, but because of the great examples they’ve set forth (you could say despite their licenses).

(I could safely say that the closed source version will not be “Private, Secure and Free” in my eyes.)

I agree, that’s why no one would use it.

Maidsafe should also have the freedom to choose what licensing they want
to choose, they shouldn’t be “forced” to choose one that suits you or
the majority.

And agreed once again. I think I made myself clear that I was stating my opinion that they are free to ignore.

2 Likes

Hey, folks, as I’ve said above (and @dirvine has fully agreed) , the patents and licenses aren’t about forcing anything on anybody, just making it so that anyone innovating for the SAFE network can’t be forced to NOT innovate or use someone else’s innovation.

Say party A copies some aspect of the code, makes an innovation and closes it off. Party B comes along and makes a similar innovation in the code and shares it openly.

Party A, being in violation of the license, cannot then come along and patent and license their innovation and prevent party B (or anyone else) from using it or try to sue for royalties from anyone who uses it. It’s all to defend the freedom to remain open.

Party A will be effectively free to do whatever they want, including keeping their innovation closed. But the patents and licenses make it very hard to push others around using state power.

3 Likes

Can you please clarify? I’m no lawyer (thank god), but it seems to me that the innovations that party A adds would be “value added” items, and still be patentable no matter the license. Here’s an example:

Let’s say you invent the bicycle. Your license is saying anyone can use the design as long as they open source their innovations. Now party A from above comes and adds an innovation, the little bicycle stand that keeps it upright when not in use. What’s to stop party A from filing for a patent on the bicycle stand part only, and not on the rest of the bicycle, even if it’s open source? Do you see what I’m asking? In other words, party A can still file a patent (in loosely described terms, like most patents) that encapsulates only their innovation (which they created), preventing others from using their innovation (party B). Just like MaidSafe filed patents on their open source code.

Nope. As a matter of law in the (US at least) any well-drafted patent includes ANY PRODUCT, which has all of the “elements” of the prior patent.

Now if you can remove one of the claimed elements, then its not covered by the patent, but you can add anything you want, and thats still covered.

I’m not following you here.

Ok the way patents are written you have Party 1 saying “I claim an invention comprising A, B, and C.”

So anything which includes A, B, and C is covered by Patent 1 (so ABCD is covered, as is ABCDE, and ABCDEF etc). It doesn’t matter how much value you add, Patent 1 still covers.

If you create a product ABE, so one of the elements (C) is missing, then this is not covered.

Now you in theory you can create a “blocking patent.” So Party 2 could file a patent for DEF, and while they can’t use ABC, they could prevent anyone else from using the variant ABCDEF.

Now there are two problems with this. First there is the market problem. If DEF is a dependent product, that is DEF has no use except in the product ABCDEF, then Party 2 cannot market, that is create and sell their patented product, unless they conform to the licenses of Party 1. So no commercial entity will do this (angry billionaires might, but not profit-hungry corporations).

The second problem is the development problem, particularly when you are dealing with software, which you technically copy every single time you compile or change computers, which means that you must again have the rights to license (there used to be an experimental exception in US patent law, but it does not include research or experiments as part of a commercial endeavor. In the US in order to experiment with patented software you have to either have a license or wait until the patent has expired).

2 Likes

@eblanshey, I’m not a lawyer either, so thanks to @kirkion for the clarification.

I figure that there’s no perfect solution, but I think GPL3 is a viable cholce to get the network up and running, with a life of its own. Beyond that, the network itself should have a big influnce on changing the paradigm on all of this stuff.

3 Likes

Oh and the other thing, is that by a heinously corrupt process known as the Uruguay Round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the US managed to con the rest of the world into agreeing to something called TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), which in exchange for some minor tweaks in US law (which in every instance of which I am aware reduced the public domain), every other signatory of the WTO agreed to basically be bound by certain “minimum standards” which are effectively identical to US Law.

1 Like

You cannot patent source code or software in most countries. You can patent innovative, industrially applicable and novel inventions only. That is the important part. No source code is patented

1 Like

Its said that the Regan admin simply ceased enforcing labor law. Will it matter if non enforcement of rights in infringement cases against open source entities begins to occur? It inconviences money as power we will simply ignore GPL3 type court and agency approach?

@eblanshey:

This is just the thing. What exactly does SAFE stand for? Or rather, what exactly is the purpose of MaidSafe? I believe the core purpose of MaidSafe is on the front page of the website

I think a better summary is “secure access for everyone” because it reveals the values behind the goal: security and access, with equal rights for everyone.

I will not attempt to define @dirvine’s purpose in creating SAFE, but one of the things that impressed me to join this project was reading what David believed could be accomplished by creating it, and because of the values I felt were evident from his words.

I find his being more convinced about GPL over time consistent with the above, and I think that adopting GPL is both consistent with S. A. F. E. and amplifies its potential effect.

I have gone from not understanding the distinction between “open source” and “free as in freedom”, but now think I get it, and am more and more convinced that it is a better system than conventional IP in general, rather than just a useful alternative license. How that ever got in place I now wonder. It pretends to be designed to support creativity and innovation, but it’s effect seems to me to be otherwise, defended by those who benefit from it financially, who constantly seek to extend it and apply it in ways that massively offend that justification.

All for GPL, and GPL for all!

2 Likes

Thanks for the explanation.

Now you in theory you can create a “blocking patent.” So Party 2 could
file a patent for DEF, and while they can’t use ABC, they could prevent
anyone else from using the variant ABCDEF.

If we’re just talking about patenting the ideas themselves, then it still seems like a possibility to use loose terms to patent an idea without requiring the use of ABC.

Again, I’m using logic, and there’s no logic in law. I’m mixed on this. One the one hand maybe it’s worth it if there can actually be protection against innovation-stoppers. On the other hand, I feel like, because the system is so broken, all this is doing is putting a bandaid on a broken arm. Companies/governments who would want to put a stop to this will find a way, so it’s still like throwing chaff in into the wind.

Ultimately, I agree with @fergish. I don’t think GPL3 is going to make or break MaidSafe in the beginning. As long as David and others in the community remains open minded and flexible (which they seem to be), then I’m certain they’ll make the right decisions to adapt to changing requirements as time goes on.

1 Like

You can patent algorithms and processes and designs though, albeit they are unenforceable in large chunks of the world (e.g. the EU, China, India) and some of those are increasingly unenforceable in even the US with recent Supreme Court judgements.

Patents are really there as an incumbency protector and to give corporate legal something business related to do. They certainly have zero of anything to do with innovation, except to stifle it.

I will grant they are probably useful in enabling finance for very expensive products such as pharmaceuticals. I will note their much shorter lifespan in that field than things like RSA encryption, the patenting of which held back good encryption available to all for two decades.

Niall

2 Likes

Agreed, the steam engine (Watt) is a great example of bad patents. I think they had the idea to allow inventors to bury themselves in innovation and get a reward, as usual the size of the reward was way too much. I believe patents have run their course now and worked for a little while, got abused and have now failed. If we could do some longer term paid research ot would be great, I think at least tax breaks for R&D is a start, but the easy way to prove R&D is patent count :frowning: its another example of binary approach to innovation - patent == innovative, no patent == idea to be stolen and not able to be capitalised. We just need to get smarter I think and allow a ton of R&D to happen and also reward people better.

Few of the people who actually create a patent these days gets rewarded, they are regarded as men in white suits (no sexism form me, this is what ‘professional entrepreneurs say’) and typical of society where near brain dead but low morality people can get to the top and crush smart people with ease. I would love to change that scenario, but it is like the anti cracker code we have to put in systems like SAFE, the extra work is formidable, just to prevent bad behaviour. As a society we want the binary approach (patents == inventor) and until we can look further than a simple pigeon hole we will suffer this upside down world we seem to live in.

So yes patents are bad and hopefully if safecoin can get traction then the network paying developers is a start, sure the improvements will be huge as time goes by, but the sentiment is probably better than patents in terms of innovator rewards. Now if only core library devs could be rewarded as well as all the other invisible people like medical research etc.

3 Likes

Though I am no expert. I believe the lgpl makes exception for linking statically or dynamically with libraries under its license, without forcing the license on the modules or clients. Wouldn’t this then allow for linking a maidsafe header and .so or .dll to my own work without forcing me to lgpl in my own code?

1 Like