Euro polls: Pact to protect free software? Opinions

[corkie]

Free software could become an election issue in the forthcoming Euro polls on 4 June with a group promoting a pact to protect software from government interference. Read more here

I normally stay away from politics and the issues surrounding them.
Unless it's a issue I feel strongly about.

For example, I was one of the founding members of IrelandOffline, but not an active member for the last few years due to conflicts of interest with my employment.

Please note there is also "corkie on politics.ie", which is not me, just in case people confuse us.

I will be reading more about this pact and commenting again on here.
What are other peoples opinions.

Regards,
John O Connell.
Disclaimer: My employment with DSGi ended on the Friday 8th May 2009.

[turgon]

I suppose one reason governments might be inclined to go with Microsoft etc, is those are companies that employ people. Thus Microsoft will stay in Ireland and provide jobs.

Rather than getting the CSO to rely on Linux, say.

[donegalfella]

The Free Software Pact is calling on citizens and their any candidates standing as MEPs Members of the European Parliament to back free software as a way to build a free society.

How do you define a "free society"? Can you explain how "free software" becomes a mechanism for constructing one?

[Hitman Actual]

I think you need to elaborate a bit more on what the issue actually is. I mean, I work in the tech sector, all-be-it in silicon IP which might not be relevant here, but I'm not sure what the problem is. What do you mean by "government interference"? And are you talking about open-source SW like OpenOffice or similar free apps? And, as donegalfella asks, what's this "free society" that you're on about? Is there some sort of belief out there that SW developers aren't entitled to be paid for their time and skills? The issue is a bit vague, tbh.

[corkie]

Getting to the heart of the Mater, following the news feed resulted in finding this site:
http://www.freesoftwarepact.eu/post/...-software-pact

The Free Software Pact is a citizen initiative to coordinate a European scale campaign in favour of Free Software. We will provide material and software to any volunteer who want to contribute to the initiative.
What are the objectives of the Free Software Pact?

The Free Software Pact is a simple document with which candidates can inform the voting public that they favor the development and use of Free Software, and will protect it from possible threatening EU legislation. The Free Software Pact is also a tool for citizens who value Free Software to educate candidates about the importance of Free Software and why they should, if elected, protect the European Free Software community.

Again I still need to explore and read this more my self, I hoping there refering to open source software and protection against EU patents laws etc.
Regards,
John O Connell.
P.S. I will be adding more links under the 'patents' tag as explore this more

Also i equate "Free" here as in FREEDOM, not (price/cost).

The Free Software Pact is also supported by Richard M. Stallman, founder and president of the Free Software Foundation, who said, Big dangers threaten the freedoms of free software in Europe: software patents, digital restrictions management (DRM), bundled sales and treacherous computing... I call on all European citizens who value free software to join this campaign, contact their candidates and have them sign the Free Software Pact.

[donegalfella]

OP, anyone who is concerned about preserving a free society has much larger issues to be worrying about right now than Linux and patent law.

[Scofflaw]

Originally Posted by donegalfella

OP, anyone who is concerned about preserving a free society has much larger issues to be worrying about right now than Linux and patent law.

That depends whether one's livelihood would be directly affected - and, more generally, whether the Internet can continue to be used as a medium for free expression by virtue of the freely available enabling software it now enjoys. Other issues may well be more serious in and of themselves, but these days our ability to discuss them, and to organise against them, is increasingly dependent on the Internet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

[corkie]

Originally Posted by donegalfella

OP, anyone who is concerned about preserving a free society has much larger issues to be worrying about right now than Linux and patent law.

Did you order it online or did you buy it from your local high street computer retailer even though it would cost you more?

If i was still employed, I wouldn't have the freedom to freely discuss this on this medium.

It's more than just Linux and Patent law.
It's about protecting your freedom to choose or share information!
It's about how you listen to music and/or watch/stream entertainment.
It's about who you trust.

Do you trust larger multinationals cooperation's and or governments to act in public interest with regard to the powerful medium you now have the freedom of using with out >>> over in-forced <<< restriction's?
>>>> You have given great example's in your replies to where we need to protect them <<<
Regards,
John O Connell.

[thebman]

So this is about copyright law reform or preventing attempts by copyright holders to lobby for stronger rights for copyright holders?

And the same for software patents? Are they for eliminating them altogether or reform or do they want to prevent reform from other lobbyiests that want stronger rights for software patent holders?

Kind of confused as to what the movement is trying to achieve.

[donegalfella]

Originally Posted by Scofflaw

That depends whether one's livelihood would be directly affected

Well, it's unclear what the OP means by "protect[ing] software from government interference." If he means that the government should not be regulating the operations of software companies, all well and good. If he means some pie-in-the-sky scheme to "protect" software from patents, then I can understand why someone employed in the industry might be concerned.

and, more generally, whether the Internet can continue to be used as a medium for free expression by virtue of the freely available enabling software it now enjoys.

I've never understood this particular line of argument. The freedom of software doesn't imply that the Internet can be used as a medium for free expression. Set up your free Apache web server in Cuba or China, and you'll see what I mean.

Other issues may well be more serious in and of themselves, but these days our ability to discuss them, and to organise against them, is increasingly dependent on the Internet.

And yet the Internet is composed largely of privately owned websites that can set whatever speech policies they wish, Boards.ie being a prime example. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with free software.

[donegalfella]

Originally Posted by corkie

Did you order it online or did you buy it from your local high street computer retailer even though it would cost you more?

I don't see how it remotely matters where or how I got my computer.

If i was still employed, I wouldn't have the freedom to freely discuss this on this medium.

Which presumably has more to do with policies set by your former employer than anything else. Even if all the software in the world were free as in speech, we would still be bound by workplace codes of conduct and subject to disciplinary proceedings for breaching them.

Do you trust larger multinationals cooperation's and or governments to act in public interest with regard to the powerful medium you now have the freedom of using with out restriction's?

I don't actually have the freedom of using this medium "without restrictions." I don't have the freedom, for instance, to use it to disseminate child pornography or to procure illegal copies of someone else's intellectual property. If I do these things, I can be prosecuted or sued, regardless of what operating system I happen to be using.

[Scofflaw]

Originally Posted by donegalfella

Well, it's unclear what the OP means by "protect[ing] software from government interference." If he means that the government should not be regulating the operations of software companies, all well and good. If he means some pie-in-the-sky scheme to "protect" software from patents, then I can understand why someone employed in the industry might be concerned.

I've never understood this particular line of argument. The freedom of software doesn't imply that the Internet can be used as a medium for free expression. Set up your free Apache web server in Cuba or China, and you'll see what I mean.

And yet the Internet is composed largely of privately owned websites that can set whatever speech policies they wish, Boards.ie being a prime example. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with free software.

You're quite correct that free software does not of itself produce free speech. However, the existence of free software has made the Internet marketplace vastly larger than it would have been if software like Apache didn't exist. That size alone makes the Internet vastly freer - if you don't like the repressive atmosphere of boards.ie, you can go to politics.ie, or a hundred thousand other discussion forums.

In turn, that software development isn't limited to a few large companies (say Sun, Microsoft, Apple) makes any government attempt to introduce restrictive licensing conditions (say, no server licensing for unapproved organisations, DRM, etc), backdoors (think Clipper chip), tracing, etc, into the servers that run the web.

Freedom depends on choice, choice depends on freedom. Simple, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

[donegalfella]

Originally Posted by Scofflaw

However, the existence of free software has made the Internet marketplace vastly larger than it would have been if software like Apache didn't exist.

If Apache didn't exist, why would the Internet be any smaller than it is currently?

That size alone makes the Internet vastly freer - if you don't like the repressive atmosphere of boards.ie, you can go to politics.ie, or a hundred thousand other discussion forums.

Yes, but I don't understand how their existence depends on free software. The sites you name above both use vBulletin, which is not free.

In turn, that software development isn't limited to a few large companies (say Sun, Microsoft, Apple) makes any government attempt to introduce restrictive licensing conditions (say, no server licensing for unapproved organisations, DRM, etc), backdoors (think Clipper chip), tracing, etc, into the servers that run the web.

Governments don't require such Big Brother technologies to behave in a repressive manner. If they want to shut down or block the websites of "unapproved organizations," they can. They can also trace Internet communications, and can block content they don't permit. Just look at the repressive Internet censorship in China, Cuba, and many other countries.

[corkie]

Originally Posted by donegalfella

Which presumably has more to do with policies set by your former employer than anything else. Even if all the software in the world were free as in speech, we would still be bound by workplace codes of conduct and subject to disciplinary proceedings for breaching them.

I know I brought it up and due to "Confidential Clause", with my ex-employer. I (can not/ will not) discuss, the mater of how my employment ended. I am still in good terms, I believe with the same and have many friends/collogues still employed with the Company.

Yes we are govern by rules of law, both as employee's >> and as employers << and/or as citizens of the EU. This thread is about what the these rules should be, voted by society and not by cooperation's.

Regards,
John O Connell
CloudBooks.org

[Scofflaw]

Originally Posted by donegalfella

If Apache didn't exist, why would the Internet be any smaller than it is currently?

Yes, but I don't understand how their existence depends on free software. The sites you name above both use vBulletin, which is not free.

Sigh - 'free' as in 'free speech', not as in 'free beer'.

Originally Posted by donegalfella

Governments don't require such Big Brother technologies to behave in a repressive manner. If they want to shut down or block the websites of "unapproved organizations," they can. They can also trace Internet communications, and can block content they don't permit. Just look at the repressive Internet censorship in China, Cuba, and many other countries.

All true, all misses the point.

cordially,
Scofflaw