[A2k] RMS on Proposals for the section of the Paris Accord on Software (June 16, 2006)

[James Love]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]


Begin forwarded message:

From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Date: June 19, 2006 3:42:19 AM EDT
To: James Love <james.love@cptech.org>
Subject: [A2k] Proposals for the section of the Paris Accord on
Software  (June 16, 2006)
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org

Would you please forward this to the participants?

     1. Concentration of ownership and control of software operating
     systems and applications presents risks and dangers to programmers
     and users.

     2.  Monopolies or cartel like ownership of PC operating systems and
     office productivity applications harms users and programmers, and
     must be addressed by governments, programmers and purchasers of
     software.

By focusing on the narrow case where one non-free program is dominant,
this implies that non-free software is ok as long as there is
competition.

To have a choice between multiple non-free programs is to be able
to choose your master.  Freedom means not having a master.

     4. Some high quality software products, standards and protocols can
     and will be produced without regard to ownership or control of
     software code, or any expectation of remuneration or other
pecuniary
     reward from the sale or licensing of the code.  On the other hand,
     some important software products are unlikely to be produced
without
     an expectation of economic rewards.

The second sentence is a statement of defeatism.  It is also clearly
false.  EVERY software packages that society desires can be developed
without any "expectation of remuneration or other pecuniary reward
from the sale or licensing of the code."  Volunteers may develop it;
companies that sell support for free software may develop it.  If not,
public institutions could hire programmers and pay them to develop it.

These paid programmers would not have any "expectation of remuneration
or other pecuniary reward from the sale or licensing of the code."
But they won't mind that, as long as they get paid regularly.


A secondary issue here: to use the term "software products" to
describe generally useful software packages carries two
unfortunate implicit assumptions.

1.  It assumes they are produced and handed to you -- that you
     do not participate in their development.

2.  It assumes that they are developed by a project to "produce"
     something, which is not necessarily the case.


     [5.  Consumers agree that infringement of software applications
     undermines economic incentives for firms to employ programmers to
     develop certain new products.  Programmers agree that excessive
     prices for software programs contribute to infringement of software
     copyrights.

Philippe is right, of course; but there is a deeper problem here, a
problem of implicit assumption.  It implicitly assumes that we WANT
firms to have "economic incentives" to develop "certain new products"
(which are surely proprietary).

A proprietary program is a temptation for people to part with their
freedom.  We are better off without them!  =A1Que se vayan todos!

     7.  Business models for software development should reward
     programmers for making users better off, and not reward programmers
     or software publishers for anticompetitive and anti-consumer
practices.

Then you want the free software world, where programmers are paid
for making a client happy.

     11.  Experience has shown that the costs of extending patent
     protection to software exceed the benefits.

Please don't use the term "protection" to describe what a patent does.
That word is biased in favor of patents.  See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Patents.

To say the same thing without that propaganda word, I suggest this:

     11.  Experience has shown that allowing patents to restrict
     software development has more costs than benefits.

I suggest going further:

     11.  Experience has shown that allowing patents to restrict
     software development has more costs than benefits.  Even worse, it
     infringes the freedom of software developers and users.


     essential FLOSS alterntatives, either directly (German policy) or
     indirectly (research and development policy, other forms of
     incentives, pro-active competition policy with corrective measures
     based on irrevocable royalty-free non-IP constrained licenses).

What does it mean for a license to be "non-IP constrained"?  I am not
sure.  If it means that the license doesn't use "IP" to constrain use
of the program, then I don't think the GNU GPL qualifies, because it
does impose some requirements based on copyright law.  That rules out
70% of free software packages.  Many other free software licenses
also would not qualify.

I get the feeling that someone assumed it was desirable to use the
term "IP" -- somehow.  But it's generally better not to use that term.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml.

So I think it is important to think about what you really want to say
in that place.  Perhaps "with corrective measures to promote FLOSS"?



---------------------------------
James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love@cptech.org /
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040

"If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks."  Bill Walton