|
  
Law, Economy, Politic and libre software
Frédéric COUCHET
Keywords
- Copyright
- Patent
- Trademark
- Innovation
- Litigation
- economy
- politic
- Intellectual property infringement
Motivations
Computer software creations are legally considered as
intellectual property. Free or open-source software is no
exception. Their actual protection by copyright allows for a
wide variety of applicable licenses, even within the
relatively permissive framework of the "open source"
charter. The choice of license depends on the control or
advantage the author wishes to retain over his work, and the
constraints (for freedom) he wishes to impose on derived
works, depending on the mode of derivation. The choice of a
license has an impact on the work's acceptance by the business
world as well as on the development of contributors
communities.
The current trend towards extending the scope of
intellectual property raises the problem of the increasing
patentability of software techniques. This trend jeopardizes
innovation, and more specifically the development of free
software, since the free software community (like SME's) is
ill-equipped to defend itself in a world where considerable
financial resources are required for patent portfolios or
infringement litigation. Furthermore, as a consequence of the
openness of its source code, free software is particularly
vulnerable to infringement suits.
Essentially, patents on protocols and communication formats
stifle competition and hinder the development of free
software. In this respect, the legislation proposed by Le
Déaut, Paul and Cohen supports a competitive free market
economy. This encourages the development of free software by
supporting open competition and interoperability over the
right to private intellectual property, thereby maintaining
the historical balance between public and private interests.
Given the wide variety of computers uses today, the
development and adoption of free software applications is also
dependent on their acceptance in commercial activities,
notably through distribution networks, training programs or
software modification/customizing services. In this context,
the reputation of a company, as embodied through its ownership
of trademarks, plays an essential role. Trademarks are also
important when an author wishes to retain a measure of
control, at least psychologically, over the "official" version
of an application distributed as free software.
Subtopics
- Free software and copyright
- Licenses
- Software patentability, evolution and impact
- Intellectual property and interoperability - standards and competition
- Libre software, economy and business
- Libre software and politic
Program
Richard M. Stallman
rms@gnu.org
http://www.gnu.org/ |
Copyright vs Community in the Age of Computer Networks
Copyright developed in the age of the printing press, and was designed
to fit with the system of centralized copying imposed by the printing
press. But the copyright system does not fit well with computer
networks, and only draconian punishments can enforce it.
The global corporations that profit from copyright are lobbying
for draconian punishments, and to increase their copyright powers,
while suppressing public access to technology. But if we
seriously hope to serve the only legitimate purpose of
copyright--to promote progress, for the benefit of the
public--then we must make changes in the other direction.
|
Emmanuel Raviart
eraviart@entrouvert.org
http://www.entrouvert.org/ |
Glasnost, Free Software for E-Democracy
Electronic vote raises real technical as well as psychological and
social issues. But it also allows new appropriate usages (fairer
polls, new voting practises, decision support...) for charities, local
authorities and companies. Glasnost, a recent piece of free software,
is a pioneer in this field. A look at the way it is being used
challenges a few stereotypes about democracy.
|
Julien Tayon
julien@tayon.net
|
The need for hybridation, when firms meet Free Software :
how to avoid proprietarization.
This year has seen new threats on Free Software community :
SourceForge & United Linux. These threats are new, because both
threats are coming from organizations using Free Software under the
GNU GPL license. Nowadays License seems to be necessary but not
sufficient to protect the Free Software Community. Organization &
methods may be the missing link. Adopting Free Software is not only
using a Free Software-compliant License, it also comes with the
respect of the methods. We'll first study the formalization of our
methods and organization, then the expected benefits for both Free
Software Community and companies, and as a conclusion we'll present an
initiative dedicated to the spread and the improvement of
«free-methods». |
Jean-Paul Smets
jp@nexedi.com
http://petition.eurolinux.org/ |
Workshop: write yourself your obvious patents in order to avoid
to pay
taxes
|
Alexandre Dulaunoy
adulau@ael.be
http://www.ael.be/ |
The current and future legal framework : A Threat to Free
Software and Computer Science
"We are going to talk about the legal framework that protects the Freedom
of Free Software. But this framework is moving quite dangerously and this
Freedom is in danger with multiple laws (from EUCD to the proposal DRM
directive). We will discuss and pass in review all the specific cases that
are in danger in that perspective (from a Free Software developer side) and
discuss the activism (or a basic HOWTO, if you prefer) to protect the
four freedoms of Free Software."
|
Georg C. F. Greve
greve@gnu.org
http://www.fsfeurope.org/ |
FSF Europe: Copyright, law and legal maintainability
Along with working examples of the FSF Europe during the past year,
Georg Greve will explain some of the legal issues around Free Software
and introduce the often neglected concept of legal maintainability.
|
Ruben Safir
ruben@mrbrklyn.com
http://www.nylxs.com/ |
Free Software - Providing for a bigger tent
Free Software provides an obvious benifit for developers
and computer systems people. But as we move forward in the
digital age, the greatest asset for Free Software, and the reasons
for us to assure it's political survival, is far greater. Only through
broad use of Free Software can we assure the Freedom needed for society
to combat the forces of intolerance and autocracy which are ominously
hovering just over the horizon.
The real benefactors of the future for Free Softare is the every day user.
When we reach the greater public, we act as the bulkhead for a prosperous
and free society for all.
|
Olivier Berger
oberger@april.org
http://www.april.org/ |
Workshop: Structuring the european Free Software community to
address European Commission's Research and Development funding
programs
The European Commission is in the process of definig
the 6th Research and Development Framework Program's rules. The FP 6
(2002-2006) provides a potentially interesting opportunity for people
and organisations involved in inovative activities in Free Software to
raise finances. In order to be able to enter the EC's funding
instruments, we have to adapt to formal rules rather unusual to the
Free Software Community. What are the needs of the Free Software
actors ? What changed between FP 5 and FP 6 ? What players are ready
to go for EC fundings ? How to organise best ? Which areas may benefit
from these programs ? Are there better ways to help Free Software
activities ? What role may European Free Software associations play ?
... Many questions we'll try to address in this workshop. |
Georg Dafermos
georgedafermos@lycos.co.uk
|
Libre Software, Digital Assets and Network Resources
Management
For the last century, economists and management scholars have been
confronted with the task of designing and implementing sustainable
economic models for the exchange of goods and services and elaborating
on decision making frameworks to boost productivity and
streamline business processes. Their findings clearly maintained that
value and sustainable growth are to be attained through either of two
distinct types of organisation of production and economic activity:
within the boundaries of the hierarchic firm or the anarchic market
guided solely by the invisible hand. The practical effect took the
shape of centralised governance mechanisms, management systems
premised on explicit delegation of authority and responsibility and
accomplishment of narrowly defined objectives along with equally
strengthened property rights. Most strikingly, decentralised
production systems as sources of competitive advantage were largely
discarded in spite of their being demonstrably viable. However, the
forces of digitisation and globalisation combined, have unleashed the
potential of Internet enabled, global communities that strongly
undermine the contemporary wisdom surrounding centrally planned
organisations based on linear value chain interactions. In light of
these transformations, online communities are bound to redefine the
economics of collaborative development and exert great influence on
the scope of management and how that should be exercised. Most
importantly, these communities neither resemble a hierarchic firm nor
a self interest driven market, but a network organised in a
massively decentralised fashion to allow for the most efficient
allocation, exploitation and, exploration of replicable or/and
replenishable network resources. The most characteristic and
successful of them, the Libre Software community, poses unprecedented
challenges to the organisation of software production (centrally
planned mode of software development) and emerges as a valid indicator
of the changes to come and impact upon knowledge intensive
industries. Contrary to what critics claim, Libre Software development
is not a loosely organised anarchy and its applicability to other
economic sectors cannot be lightly dismissed. Similarly, the role of
management has not vanished, though it may be re-invented, but its
importance, nonetheless, is anything but trivial. For the sea change
presented by Libre software to be managed organically and flourish, as
well as the development life cycle, the sense of a local community
must be implanted along with coherent mechanisms to harness the
process: aggregation points (virtual roof) to provide information
centred value added services, parallel development to harness
both disruptive and sustaining innovation and, decentralised (modular)
delegation of responsibility and control to eliminate the need for
scholastic control over human resources. On these premises, Libre
Software portrays as a radically different perspective on the
organisation of production and economic activity that if managed
effectively, is well positioned to outweigh the strategic
capabilities inscribed in physically constrained production settings.
|
Schedule
Wednesday, July 10th
| 09:00 - 10:20 | The need for hybridation, when firms meet Free software : avoiding the propriaritization ![[PUBLIC]](/images/type_public.png) ,
by Julien Tayon | ENSEIRB
Amphi A |
| 10:40 - 12:40 | Workshop: Structuring the european Free Software community to address European Commission's Research and Development funding programs ,
by Olivier Berger | ENSEIRB
Room TD 13 |
| 14:00 - 16:00 | Free Software - Providing for a bigger tent ,
by Ruben Safir | ENSEIRB
Amphi A |
Thursday, July 11th
| 10:40 - 12:40 | FSF Europe: Copyright, law and legal maintainability ,
by Georg C. F. Greve | ENSEIRB
Amphi A |
| 14:00 - 16:00 | Copyright vs Community in the Age of Computer Networks ,
by Richard Stallman | ENSEIRB
Grand Amphi |
| 16:20 - 18:20 | Libre Software, Digital Assets and Network Resources Management ,
by Georg Dafermos | ENSEIRB
Amphi A |
Friday, July 12th
| 10:40 - 12:40 | Glasnost, Free Software for E-Democracy ,
by Emmanuel Raviart | ENSEIRB
Amphi A |
| 14:00 - 16:00 | The current and future legal framework : A Threat to Free Software and Computer Science ,
by Alexandre Dulaunoy | ENSEIRB
Grand Amphi |
| 16:20 - 18:20 | Workshop: write yourself your obvious patents in order to avoid to pay taxes ,
by Jean-Paul Smets | ENSEIRB
Grand Amphi |
|
http://lsm2002.abul.org/program/topic17/topic17.php3