Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents - Mailing list pgsql-www
From | Chris Travers |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |
Date | |
Msg-id | 42687DCF.8010002@travelamericas.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Responses |
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents
|
List | pgsql-www |
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> I read their "About" >> >> http://www.eff.org/about/ >> >> Too political, this group is not just anti-patents and goes much farther >> than I think we can agree as a group. > > > Uhmmm software patents are about as political as you can get ;). > Agreed. Which if I understand correctly accounts for Bruce's opposition. Also if we don't have the main button link to the EFF page but provide a list of other online resources (approved by the community) we need not indicate that we identify with the EFF regarding all their causes. I am generally opposed to unnecessarily politicizing work-based communities. The PostgreSQL is very much a work-based community, so for me to support it, I must generally decide that the community is so much better off that we really must take a stand on it. Or that we as a community are already taking a de facto stand. If I understand other people correctly, Joshua Drake and Bruce Momjian set a similarly high bar for such activity. Stating that the PostgreSQL community has no position on software patents is not quite accurate. I don't even think that Bruce can make that case after the ARC issue. Changing the caching algorythm in the middle of a stable branch (which would otherwise only contain bug fixes) over patent concerns sends a very loud message, and one which has been picked up on in a number of publications. This is true especially given the fact that we did not try to resolve this matter with IBM. So like it or not we are politicized already by circumstances forced on us by oneof IBM's patents. So if we are going to be politicized anyway, we might as well make sure that we are clear about our message. Otherwise, we are at the mercy of journalists' interpretations, and we will perpetuate a situation where those involved in the decision to replace ARC are essentially left to represent our community in this political issue without any community approved resources except their interpretation of a set of events surrounding this patent. Here is what I would suggest. Have a "No Software Patents" button. Have it link to a discussion of software patents with the ARC patent as the prime example of why software patents hurt open source and small software developers. Keep it close to home. Provide a list of advocacy organizations (like the EFF) with a disclaimer that we are not responsible for their positions nor their content. Done well, this could be a great benefit. But I do agree that it could be damaging if done poorly. Lets make this a powerful testimony to the dangers that these patents pose for our members, but keep it reasonable, accessible, and down to earth. Now, why should we wait for a general consensus on this issue before hashing out the details? I don't care where the page is hosted as long as it represents those of us who want to link ot it. Also it is easier to discuss the reservations of any in the community if we have a definite proposal (including, if possible, suggested wording). Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consultings > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > > >> > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > >