Hi, my name is Alex and I've been a Fedora user for a long time. Also, I'm quite new to this list. I know a lot of people (myself included) that agree with Fedora not integrating propietary software into the system, as Ubuntu does in many different ways, especially in the installer. To put things clear, I'd never advocate for that.
However, there's one issue I think deserves a little more consideration. There is another kind of software that is perfectly fine free software but is also excluded from a default Fedora install. That is, patent encumbered software. As you know, there are some patents that are not valid outside USA (ie: subpixel rendering, MP3). That software is provided in third-party repositories like RPMFusion in the form of "-freetype" packages.
The lack-by-default of these packages presents a clear usability issue for non-quite-that-technical users and it greatly hurts the user experience for everyone. So, is there any way that Fedora could enforce this patent-free position where it makes sense (the USA), but includes it (or at least gives the user the option at installation time) if allowed by local laws?
Sorry, I meant "-freeworld" packages.
2015-06-10 15:28 GMT+02:00 Alex Puchades alex94puchades@gmail.com:
Hi, my name is Alex and I've been a Fedora user for a long time. Also, I'm quite new to this list. I know a lot of people (myself included) that agree with Fedora not integrating propietary software into the system, as Ubuntu does in many different ways, especially in the installer. To put things clear, I'd never advocate for that.
However, there's one issue I think deserves a little more consideration. There is another kind of software that is perfectly fine free software but is also excluded from a default Fedora install. That is, patent encumbered software. As you know, there are some patents that are not valid outside USA (ie: subpixel rendering, MP3). That software is provided in third-party repositories like RPMFusion in the form of "-freetype" packages.
The lack-by-default of these packages presents a clear usability issue for non-quite-that-technical users and it greatly hurts the user experience for everyone. So, is there any way that Fedora could enforce this patent-free position where it makes sense (the USA), but includes it (or at least gives the user the option at installation time) if allowed by local laws?
-- Álex Puchades
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Alex Puchades alex94puchades@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, my name is Alex and I've been a Fedora user for a long time. Also, I'm quite new to this list. I know a lot of people (myself included) that agree with Fedora not integrating propietary software into the system, as Ubuntu does in many different ways, especially in the installer. To put things clear, I'd never advocate for that.
However, there's one issue I think deserves a little more consideration. There is another kind of software that is perfectly fine free software but is also excluded from a default Fedora install. That is, patent encumbered software. As you know, there are some patents that are not valid outside USA (ie: subpixel rendering, MP3). That software is provided in third-party repositories like RPMFusion in the form of "-freetype" packages.
The lack-by-default of these packages presents a clear usability issue for non-quite-that-technical users and it greatly hurts the user experience for everyone. So, is there any way that Fedora could enforce this patent-free position where it makes sense (the USA), but includes it (or at least gives the user the option at installation time) if allowed by local laws?
This has been discussed many many times over the years. The problem you highlight is accurate, but the answer, in short, is no.
josh
Ok, as I said, I'm relatively new to this mailing list, so I'd be grateful if you could provide me some of the threads targetting this issue. I'm not simply proposing this software to be added to the installer, but I'm proposing to discuss the reasons involved and if there's a legal reason where simply pointing users to RPMFusion, for example, would mean that Fedora is breaking patent laws.
I am sorry if it has already been discussed, but if this subject crops from time to time, I think that's a reason to reconsider that there exists a real problem. And if so, I guarantee there are people that have the will to help, myself included.
2015-06-10 15:34 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Alex Puchades alex94puchades@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, my name is Alex and I've been a Fedora user for a long time. Also,
I'm
quite new to this list. I know a lot of people (myself included) that
agree
with Fedora not integrating propietary software into the system, as
Ubuntu
does in many different ways, especially in the installer. To put things clear, I'd never advocate for that.
However, there's one issue I think deserves a little more consideration. There is another kind of software that is perfectly fine free software
but
is also excluded from a default Fedora install. That is, patent
encumbered
software. As you know, there are some patents that are not valid outside
USA
(ie: subpixel rendering, MP3). That software is provided in third-party repositories like RPMFusion in the form of "-freetype" packages.
The lack-by-default of these packages presents a clear usability issue
for
non-quite-that-technical users and it greatly hurts the user experience
for
everyone. So, is there any way that Fedora could enforce this patent-free position where it makes sense (the USA), but includes it (or at least
gives
the user the option at installation time) if allowed by local laws?
This has been discussed many many times over the years. The problem you highlight is accurate, but the answer, in short, is no.
josh
desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Alex Puchades alex94puchades@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, as I said, I'm relatively new to this mailing list, so I'd be grateful if you could provide me some of the threads targetting this issue. I'm not simply proposing this software to be added to the installer, but I'm proposing to discuss the reasons involved and if there's a legal reason where simply pointing users to RPMFusion, for example, would mean that Fedora is breaking patent laws.
I am sorry if it has already been discussed, but if this subject crops from time to time, I think that's a reason to reconsider that there exists a real problem. And if so, I guarantee there are people that have the will to help, myself included.
You are better off asking for this information on the fedora legal list.
josh
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 16:04 +0200, Alex Puchades wrote:
I'm not simply proposing this software to be added to the installer, but I'm proposing to discuss the reasons involved and if there's a legal reason where simply pointing users to RPMFusion, for example, would mean that Fedora is breaking patent laws.
Hi,
The short answer is that patent-encumbered software is only excluded when there is high legal risk. If we were to enable freetype's subpixel rendering, Red Hat would have to either pay $$$$$$$$ to Microsoft or else prepare for the inevitable lawsuit. The MP3 situation is better, since the last known patent expires in September; we'll include it in F23 unless the lawyers give us some unexpected reason not to.
The long answer: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageKit_Items_Not_Fo und#Fedora_Position_on_Software_Patents
Michael
That's great news! Though I personally consider OGG to be technically superior, but I guess that's slightly off-topic. Anyway.
I know one has to be very careful about breaking patents in general, and I'm not even suggesting RedHat to do so. But I thought software patents were only recognised in USA*, and invalid in almost every other country. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be any legal issues outside the USA. And so we could proceed to solve the other (technical, political, economical and philosophical) issues left.
The root of this thread is, I want Fedora to provide the best User Experience possible out-of-the-box. If subpixel rendering, for example, can't be enabled in USA, then Fedora can't possibly use it. But why punish the rest of the world for that single eventuality?
* Issues I plan to bring up in fedora-legal, once I've read a little more about the matter.
-- Álex Puchades El 10/06/2015 18:55, "Michael Catanzaro" mcatanzaro@gnome.org escribió:
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 16:04 +0200, Alex Puchades wrote:
I'm not simply proposing this software to be added to the installer, but I'm proposing to discuss the reasons involved and if there's a legal reason where simply pointing users to RPMFusion, for example, would mean that Fedora is breaking patent laws.
Hi,
The short answer is that patent-encumbered software is only excluded when there is high legal risk. If we were to enable freetype's subpixel rendering, Red Hat would have to either pay $$$$$$$$ to Microsoft or else prepare for the inevitable lawsuit. The MP3 situation is better, since the last known patent expires in September; we'll include it in F23 unless the lawyers give us some unexpected reason not to.
The long answer: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageKit_Items_Not_Fo und#Fedora_Position_on_Software_Patents
Michael
desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 19:50 +0200, Alex Puchades wrote:
But I thought software patents were only recognised in USA*, and invalid in almost every other country.
Nope, see the FAQ I linked you to in my last reply.
Anyway, Red Hat is a US company. Feel free to set up a Fedora clone based somewhere else that comes with the patented goodies, but we can't have anything to do with it. :(
Michael
On 10 June 2015 at 18:55, Michael Catanzaro mcatanzaro@gnome.org wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 16:04 +0200, Alex Puchades wrote:
I'm not simply proposing this software to be added to the installer, but I'm proposing to discuss the reasons involved and if there's a legal reason where simply pointing users to RPMFusion, for example, would mean that Fedora is breaking patent laws.
Hi,
The short answer is that patent-encumbered software is only excluded when there is high legal risk. If we were to enable freetype's subpixel rendering, Red Hat would have to either pay $$$$$$$$ to Microsoft or else prepare for the inevitable lawsuit. The MP3 situation is better, since the last known patent expires in September; we'll include it in F23 unless the lawyers give us some unexpected reason not to.
The funny thing about the MP3 patent expiring is that really MP3 is going away, and has been going away for some time now; AAC encoded audio in an MP4 container is becoming more prevalent these days, and of course AAC is another codec you can't legally add in a distro that resides in the u.s. .... so it looks like a race, one that Linux is losing unless users add 3rd party repos that can package those patent-encumbered codecs; 3rd party repos have a lower risk of getting sued, since they're individuals and suing them wouldn't bring in that much money anyway (you need to sue a big wealthy company to justify the lawyer hourly fees :)), of course IANAL, so don't take my views on legal matters to heart.
(Sorry if I got a bit too philosophical :) ).
-- Ahmad Samir
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 19:59:05 +0200, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3891@gmail.com wrote:
The funny thing about the MP3 patent expiring is that really MP3 is going away, and has been going away for some time now; AAC encoded audio in an MP4 container is becoming more prevalent these days, and of course AAC is another codec you can't legally add in a distro that resides in the u.s. .... so it looks like a race, one that Linux is losing unless users add 3rd party repos that can package those patent-encumbered codecs; 3rd party repos have a lower risk of getting sued, since they're individuals and suing them wouldn't bring in that much money anyway (you need to sue a big wealthy company to justify the lawyer hourly fees :)), of course IANAL, so don't take my views on legal matters to heart.
Opus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_%28codec%29) has become an important audio codec that doesn't have patent problems.
It seems [1] that there are mixed opinions about the matter. I'll check with fedora-legal. In any case, things like this [2][3][4] are really sad.
[1] https://fsfe.org/campaigns/swpat/swpat.en.html [2] http://david.freetype.org/cleartype-patents.html [3] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/europes-unitary-patent.html [4] http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/unitary-patent.html
2015-06-10 20:30 GMT+02:00 Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 19:59:05 +0200, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3891@gmail.com wrote:
The funny thing about the MP3 patent expiring is that really MP3 is going away, and has been going away for some time now; AAC encoded audio in an MP4 container is becoming more prevalent these days, and of course AAC is another codec you can't legally add in a distro that resides in the u.s. .... so it looks like a race, one that Linux is losing unless users add 3rd party repos that can package those patent-encumbered codecs; 3rd party repos have a lower risk of getting sued, since they're individuals and suing them wouldn't bring in that much money anyway (you need to sue a big wealthy company to justify the lawyer hourly fees :)), of course IANAL, so don't take my views on legal matters to heart.
Opus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_%28codec%29) has become an important audio codec that doesn't have patent problems.
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
I can't speak for Europe, but in the US Constitution it's fairly clearly stated:
"The Congress shall have 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"
In the case of software the implementation of the law may be problematic, but still, as an author and inventor I'd want those rights.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Alex Puchades alex94puchades@gmail.com wrote:
It seems [1] that there are mixed opinions about the matter. I'll check with fedora-legal. In any case, things like this [2][3][4] are really sad.
[1] https://fsfe.org/campaigns/swpat/swpat.en.html [2] http://david.freetype.org/cleartype-patents.html [3] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/europes-unitary-patent.html [4] http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/unitary-patent.html
2015-06-10 20:30 GMT+02:00 Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 19:59:05 +0200, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3891@gmail.com wrote:
The funny thing about the MP3 patent expiring is that really MP3 is going away, and has been going away for some time now; AAC encoded audio in an MP4 container is becoming more prevalent these days, and of course AAC is another codec you can't legally add in a distro that resides in the u.s. .... so it looks like a race, one that Linux is losing unless users add 3rd party repos that can package those patent-encumbered codecs; 3rd party repos have a lower risk of getting sued, since they're individuals and suing them wouldn't bring in that much money anyway (you need to sue a big wealthy company to justify the lawyer hourly fees :)), of course IANAL, so don't take my views on legal matters to heart.
Opus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_%28codec%29) has become an important audio codec that doesn't have patent problems.
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
-- Álex Puchades
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
Really? Do you still think patents are there to protect inventors? (I'll make an effort to keep this on-topic, I promise) See the ClearType, for example. Without entering into whether ClearType was really an improvement, a punctualization, or whatever on the previous Apple II Wozniak patent. Wozniak patent didn't prevent Microsoft from using a similar idea in their ClearType algorithm. That's because of patent portfolios, which really subvert the system upside-down. I can see the point in patenting the very specific algorithm. But not an idea! The very simple idea of `displaying images where data is "mapped" to individual (e.g. LCD) sub-pixels, instead of whole pixels` is patented! [1].
I see the point, however, in that competing products making money from foreign ideas is not fair (with *ideas* meaning a very detailed process, maybe *algorithms* would be better worded). They should include a fee for *borrowing* the idea. But don't we agree that patents, as they currently are, don't quite make sense with FreeSoftware? Who are they going to charge? Joe the User?? I think an exception for FOSS should be made, and not on a case-by-case basis.
I personally think, really, that patents were created with a very laudable purpose. But that logic has long been subverted. And we have to create alternative ways of revenue for creators. I don't know how much we can keep discussing this subject here, but I would be really interested on discussing this topic and sharing points of views with anybody interested.
[1] http://david.freetype.org/cleartype-patents.html
2015-06-11 0:25 GMT+02:00 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky znmeb@znmeb.net:
I can't speak for Europe, but in the US Constitution it's fairly clearly stated:
"The Congress shall have 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"
In the case of software the implementation of the law may be problematic, but still, as an author and inventor I'd want those rights.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Alex Puchades alex94puchades@gmail.com wrote:
It seems [1] that there are mixed opinions about the matter. I'll check
with
fedora-legal. In any case, things like this [2][3][4] are really sad.
[1] https://fsfe.org/campaigns/swpat/swpat.en.html [2] http://david.freetype.org/cleartype-patents.html [3] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/europes-unitary-patent.html [4] http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/unitary-patent.html
2015-06-10 20:30 GMT+02:00 Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 19:59:05 +0200, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3891@gmail.com wrote:
The funny thing about the MP3 patent expiring is that really MP3 is going away, and has been going away for some time now; AAC encoded audio in an MP4 container is becoming more prevalent these days, and of course AAC is another codec you can't legally add in a distro that resides in the u.s. .... so it looks like a race, one that Linux is losing unless users add 3rd party repos that can package those patent-encumbered codecs; 3rd party repos have a lower risk of getting sued, since they're individuals and suing them wouldn't bring in that much money anyway (you need to sue a big wealthy company to justify the lawyer hourly fees :)), of course IANAL, so don't take my views on legal matters to heart.
Opus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_%28codec%29) has become an important audio codec that doesn't have patent problems.
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
-- Álex Puchades
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
-- OSJourno: Robust Power Tools for Digital Journalists
http://www.znmeb.mobi/stories/osjourno-robust-power-tools-for-digital-journa...
Remember, if you're traveling to Bactria, Hump Day is Tuesday and Thursday.
desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:25 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky znmeb@znmeb.net wrote:
I can't speak for Europe, but in the US Constitution it's fairly clearly stated:
"The Congress shall have 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"
In the case of software the implementation of the law may be problematic, but still, as an author and inventor I'd want those rights.
You get those right even without patents its called "copyright" ... for instance you cannot patent a book either but you still get copyright protection for it.
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 11:55 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
The MP3 situation is better, since the last known patent expires in September; we'll include it in F23 unless the lawyers give us some unexpected reason not to.
Correction: we're only going to include it if the lawyers say we can, because there are a few more patents left (I was wrong, oops). They're probably invalid because they were filed half a decade after MP3 was finished, but it's up to Red Hat and not us to decide what to do about that, since they're assuming all the risk.
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Ahmad Samir -
Alex Puchades -
Bruno Wolff III -
drago01 -
Josh Boyer -
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky -
Michael Catanzaro