{0}{47}ithout with non-free software. {47}{113}[laughter] {113}{202} Okay, now, now we can continue. {202}{243}Oh, it's was you, I think, you. {243}{302}Uh, what is your current view about {302}{373}building something like the Lisp Machine on generic hardware? {373}{456}I'm sorry, I couldn't really understand the words you said. {456}{506}If you want to, you have talked {506}{581}before about building something like the Lisp Machine {581}{602}on the, {602}{647}ordinary, general hardware. {647}{727}Oh, I decided that that would too inefficient, {727}{792}and therefore I rejected the idea. {792}{827}But {827}{855}när du {855}{926}when you argued that you wanted an operating system {926}{999}and, then something like a Lisp Machine on top of it... {999}{1080}Well, OK, yeah, I'd like to have a Lisp system, {1080}{1125}unfortunately, {1125}{1226}well, we *do* have some Lisp Systems, you know, we have a Scheme interpreter, {1226}{1295}and there is GNU Common Lisp. {1295}{1352}It needs work, you know, it only supports {1352}{1406}Common Lisp version *one*. {1406}{1520}So if you're interested in getting us better Lisp support, {1520}{1615}please volunteer, either, either help with GNU Common Lisp, {1615}{1651}or help with Guile. {1723}{1850}But, all I can do is wait for people who want to do the work. {1850}{2027}Yes, do you know about "Larry Wall", does he confess himself to the Open Source Movement or Free Software? {2027}{2054}I don't know. {2054}{2093}You'd have to ask him. {2093}{2161}Because he, he issued his program, {2161}{2182}Perl, {2182}{2268}with two different licenses, one is the "Artistic License"... {2268}{2343}That's an inde, that's an unrelated question. {2343}{2386}You see, {2386}{2475}both movements endorse use of the GPL, {2475}{2609}and both movements also say it's legitimate to use the BSD license, {2609}{2709}both movements say that the Perl license is legitimate, {2709}{2733}so, {2733}{2757}really, tho... {2757}{2847}The difference between the movements is primarily *not* {2847}{2929}a matter of licenses. {2929}{3074}It's primarily a matter of the *reasons* we give. {3074}{3196}There was somebody over there? {3196}{3211}Where do you draw, {3211}{3233}the line, {3233}{3287}between hardware and software? {3287}{3338}When it comes to firmware, for example... {3338}{3468}Well as you said, it's, it's a gray area so you got to find someplace to draw the line, and, {3468}{3536}I don't think it's worth worrying too hard {3536}{3553}about {3553}{3609}little movements in the line. {3609}{3718}Is there a project to create some free hardware? {3718}{3770}There are such projects, {3770}{3930}and I *think* there's a link somewhere on www.gnu.org, although I'm not sure where, {3930}{4049}but I think that's not terribly important, and the reason is {4049}{4130}these moral issues become important {4130}{4210}*when you can easily copy something*. {4210}{4341}And when you can easily *modify* it and then make *copies* of the modified version. {4341}{4371}Now, {4371}{4393}You can ea... {4393}{4520}If you have a hardware *design*, you can easily copy and modify *that*, {4520}{4635}but turning it into hardware is *not* easy. {4635}{4668}So, {4668}{4703}because of that, {4703}{4790}it's you know, "Am I allowed to copy this computer?". {4790}{4905}Well, I don't have a copier that will copy it, so it doesn't make any difference. {4905}{4923}Y'know {4923}{4956}in "Star Trek", {4956}{5013}you know, if I had a transporter on hand, {5013}{5025}[laughter] {5025}{5070}and I could {5070}{5192}flip some, I could modify some switches to make it duplicate things instead, then, {5192}{5240}Uh, then yeah, then I, {5240}{5370}think that whether I'm *allowed* to copy my computer is a very important moral issue. {5370}{5431}And whether I'm allowed to copy the food {5431}{5567}that I just bought, and, and the car, and so on, all those things should be important issues. {5567}{5636}But since we don't *have* car copiers, {5636}{5702}it's not an important moral issue *today*. {5702}{5731}You know, {5731}{5787}In the age of the printing press, {5787}{5928}when copies of information could *only* be made efficiently through mass production, {5928}{6031}by sp, with specialized expensive equipment, {6031}{6057}uh, {6057}{6157}copyright did *not* raise an important ethical issue, {6157}{6322}because it was *only* a restriction on publishers, it was a kind of industrial regulation. {6322}{6415}The reason why it now creates moral issues {6415}{6469}that affect our way of life, {6469}{6488}is {6488}{6607}that *now* we have technology that permits *all* of us to do this kind of copying, {6607}{6672}so copyright is now a restriction {6672}{6744}on everybody's way of life. {6744}{6844}However, for ph, material physical objects, {6844}{6935}*those* are still in the state of affairs {6935}{7064}like the age, like books in the age of the printing press, where it takes a *factory* to make them. {7064}{7094}And so, {7094}{7182}you know, the question of whether we're allowed to copy them {7182}{7229}doesn't really {7229}{7288}have a practical difference, {7288}{7362}and whether we're allowed to *modify* them, {7362}{7430}well, actually, yes, we *are* allowed to modify them, {7430}{7455}you know, {7455}{7537}if I own a computer I'm allowed to modify it, {7537}{7697}except that it's pretty impractical to modify the ins, the internals of a chip. {7697}{7842}Even if you *manufacture* the chip, you, you work for the company that made the chip, you can't change it. {7842}{7931}You ca, it just can't be done. {7931}{8056}Does that mean that you have exactly the same views on all intellectual properties? {8056}{8140}I don't believe you should use the term "intellectual property"; {8140}{8202}it's too big a generalization. {8202}{8244}It encourages you to, {8244}{8298}it, it's an invitation {8298}{8379}to m, bad sloppy thinking, {8379}{8405}because {8405}{8503}patents and copyrights are *so different* from each other, {8503}{8617}that, almost *everything* is different, hardly *anything* is similar. {8617}{8714}So you should *never* try to treat them both together. {8714}{8804}And, therefore you shouldn't use the term "intellectual property", {8804}{8916}and if somebody else is trying to talk about "intellectual property", you should say: {8916}{8985}"Please be more fs, specific; {8985}{9038}what are you talking about? {9038}{9188}Are you talking about copyrights, are you talking about patents, are you talking about trade secrets, are you talking about trademarks?" {9188}{9243}And there are various other kinds as well. {9243}{9302}They're *all* *totally* different. {9302}{9336}The *other* thing is, {9336}{9373}that even, {9373}{9407}I think, {9407}{9496}even if we stick to just *one* of them, say, {9496}{9536}copyrights, {9536}{9594}that's *still* too big an area. {9594}{9674}I don't think we should treat it uniformly, {9674}{9725}different kinds of works, {9725}{9771}that might be copyrighted, {9771}{9834}are *used* in different ways, {9834}{9879}and, so, {9879}{9939}the *same basic questions* {9939}{9974}have to be asked, {9974}{10003}but the answers, {10003}{10039}at least in *my* view, {10039}{10141}are *not* all, always the same. {10141}{10210}But, but, the reasons for, say, {10210}{10257}an, {10257}{10361}not having the same views on a book, or something like that... {10361}{10453}N, I'm sorry, I can't hear you, could you speak *louder* please? {10453}{10553}The reasons for not having the same views on, say, a book or something like that, {10553}{10609}couldn't they be applied to software as well, then? {10609}{10647}Well, {10647}{10698}yeah, first of all I don't say I have {10698}{10730}views about {10730}{10756}books {10756}{10777}because {10777}{10878}you know, for *some* kinds of books, say, like manuals and textbooks, {10878}{10917}I'd say that those are, {10917}{11019}just like software and that they have to be free in the same way, {11019}{11092}but for *other* kinds of books, say, like... {11092}{11215}Uh, an, an, and for dictionaries also, I'd say those have to be free in the same way, {11215}{11332}but for *other* kinds of books, like novels, that may be a different question. {11332}{11360}So, {11360}{11429}uh, it has to do with how they're *used*. {11429}{11494}Software is a *functional* {11494}{11529}work. {11529}{11549}Uh, {11549}{11616}it's very rare that a program is written {11616}{11729}*primarily* to be *admired* by people who look at it. {11729}{11813}*Normally*, it's written to be *run* by a computer, {11813}{11979}and when people look at it and study it they're doing so because they're interested in what it *does* {11979}{12055}when you run it on a computer. {12055}{12081}So, {12081}{12133}uh, {12133}{12215}you know, when something is mainly *functional*, {12215}{12293}that has certain consequences, {12293}{12360}which don't apply to a novel, say. {12427}{12481}Uh, I would like to make a comparison, then, {12481}{12511}to, {12511}{12563}eh, you say that, a functional {12563}{12612}book, like a dictionary, {12612}{12639}that should be {12639}{12662}general, {12662}{12704}that should be generally available, that should... {12704}{12726}It should be free. {12726}{12747}Yes. {12747}{12762}But, as... {12762}{12803}In the same sense as software. {12803}{12823}Yes. {12823}{12857}But then, {12857}{12891}you say, novels, {12891}{12965}which are more for entertainment and amusements, {12965}{12996}they don't need to be free. {12996}{13100}More that, maybe the definition of "free" that's appropriate for a novel {13100}{13247}would be different from the criterion of "free" for a program or a manual. {13247}{13328}Yeah, how would you then make the difference between {13328}{13428}a utility program and a game program? {13428}{13633}Well, I would say that the game *program* should be free software in the same sense as a compiler. {13633}{13776}But, perhaps the game *scenario* could be treated differently. {13776}{14002}I would say that there is a certain *basic minimum* freedom that should apply to absolutely any kind of work that you could have on your computer. {14002}{14153}And that is the freedom to occasionally mail a copy to your friend. {14153}{14284}That kind of private, non-organized redistribution is {14284}{14456}the absolute minimum, because any attempt to take that away from people becomes oppressive. {14456}{14556}And requires a police state to enforce it. {14556}{14716}But whether additional freedoms are essential, that depends on what sort of thing it is. {14716}{14854}So maybe it's good enough for the game *scenario* if, {14854}{14999}if people are just allowed to redistribute it c, by occasionally mailing it to their friends. {14999}{15095}But for the game *engine*, it should be free software. {15170}{15191}You said that {15191}{15214}the, the, hard, {15214}{15332}hardware redevelopment for the free software ideology would be easy to replicate {15332}{15344}Yeah. {15344}{15487}So, in regards to firmware and software patents, what are your comments on gene patents? {15487}{15557}Well, {15557}{15613}I'm not sure. {15613}{15723}I'm definitely against gene patents for natural genes. {15723}{15766}That's clear. {15766}{15870}Whether there should be gene patents for artificial genes, {15870}{15955}I'm not sure. {15955}{16080}Uh, the situation with, you, you know, you couldn't find... {16080}{16297}But if there *are* gene patents for artificial genes, then farmers should be allowed to save the seeds nonetheless. {16297}{16475}It's clear that farmers should be allowed and *must* be allowed to save their seeds and replant them the next year, {16475}{16539}and also, trade them to other farmers. {16539}{16621}Farmers must be allowed to continue doing breeding {16621}{16705}the way they've done for ten thousand years. {16705}{16747}But, {16747}{16779}that doesn't, wh... {16779}{16928}It may be, though, that some limited kind of patenting for *artificial* genes {16928}{17028}could be a reasonable system to have. {17028}{17049}But I, but f... {17049}{17177}But for naturally occuring genes, those sh, *definitely* should not be patentable at all. {17260}{17457}Has your work had any, uh, effect on legislation in countries in international law? Has copyleft been... {17457}{17506}Not yet. {17506}{17751}Uh, so far, the software companies and the other media companies have been dictating changes in copyright law. {17751}{17824}Which is a tremendous injustice. {17824}{18009}We are just now getting to the point where we might *begin* to have an effect on slowing them down. {18009}{18184}There are now proposals, in both France and Denmark, to pass a law saying {18184}{18369}that the government must use free software al, whenever that is possible. {18369}{18462}Uh, which would be the first instance of laws {18462}{18552}passed for the sake of encouraging free software. {18552}{18630}I think, though, that {18630}{18735}the issue of software patents is *more important*, {18735}{18777}and, {18777}{18900}there is a lot of effort now within the Free Software community {18900}{19038}to work to *stop* Europe from adopting software patents. {19038}{19063}To get more, th... {19063}{19173}There is an important decision that would be made next June, I believe. {19173}{19381}Whether to amend the Munich treaty, which establishes the European patent office, {19381}{19477}to *permit* patenting software. {19477}{19580}That's the proposal. And we are working to block it. {19580}{19869}And you should help. So, if we succeed, that will have been the first really important effect of free software on international law. {19990}{20151}How have you managed to control software quality and interoperability within the GNU project? {20151}{20294}Well, for the most part, everybody working on free software {20294}{20434}tends to recognize that the users want it to be able to work with other software. {20434}{20533}So, they tend to try to support interoperability. {20533}{20804}And if the original developer doesn't pay attention to that but the users want that, the users can change the program to make it interoperate. {20804}{20899}And, th, th, the awareness that the users can do that, {20899}{21023}tends to encourage the developer to do what the users are going to want. {21023}{21246}Because it's rather frustrating to have the users change your program to make it compatible and not use your version anymore. {21246}{21390}So, you will tend to make your version compatible so that that, the users won't have to do that. {21390}{21564}There *are* of course occasional exceptions, there are people who are just very stubborn about something, and, and don't care. {21564}{21727}And when that happens, well, the users either don't use that program, or, or they change it to be compatible, {21727}{21842}or, if it's not *too* bad a problem they accept it the way it is. {21964}{22017}And, as far as q... {22017}{22094}Within the GNU project *specifically*, {22094}{22141}well, {22141}{22283}if I see, if I find out about a lack of interoperability or a lack of coherence, {22283}{22354}between two parts of the GNU project, {22354}{22462}I think about it and I ask one or both of the maintainers to make some changes. {22462}{22490}Because, be, {22490}{22608}because they're working for the GNU project they have a, they're supposed to listen. {22608}{22726}Because it's, they're not independent projects, they're part of one larger project. {22782}{22814}Is that what, {22814}{22834}uh, {22834}{22918}groups called the cheap programming team on? {22918}{22939}I don't know. {22939}{22962}[laughter] {23033}{23182}Hi, when I, when I look at all these Linux distributions, it came to my mind that... {23182}{23245}[laughter] {23245}{23392}It came to my mind that today, even the free software movement have to get money some way. {23392}{23409}Yeah. {23409}{23417}and {23417}{23534}Well, actually, it *helps*, but it's not absolutely necessary. {23534}{23573}Yes, but I, I, I, {23573}{23723}I thought maybe you, it could be organized in some way and maybe you shoot me down after say this, but {23723}{23765}Eh, {23765}{23877}It came to my mind that there's a lot of proprietary software in each distribution {23877}{23903}Yeah, it's really sad. {23903}{24012}...argue that free software in the sense you, you're paying for the proprietary softw... {24012}{24161}No, no, that's not true. They don't say that. You're paying for the whole thing. {24161}{24208}Oh yeah, OK, OK. {24208}{24313}But, that's just the impression you get. But... {24313}{24401}Well, actually, I'm interested in what you just said. {24401}{24503}If there is something specific on one of these distributions {24503}{24632}which says that "you're paying for this added proprietary software", {24632}{24699}then I would like you to e-mail me {24699}{24850}a description of, you know, who, which product is it, and what exactly did they say? {24850}{24919}Because I want to complain to them. {24919}{24949}But, continue. {24949}{25229}Yeah, let's say you organize it in this way, that you allow eh, people to, eh, contribute to a, free s, free software CD, by just the binaries. {25229}{25401}But tell them that, in, "in half a year you have to give us also the software". {25401}{25426}The source code. {25426}{25531}That way they can d, earn money and we could still get more free software. {25531}{25577}Well, we can't do that. {25577}{25700}Because basically we can't enc, we can't endorse any program that isn't fr... {25700}{25837}We can't endorse a program *today* if it isn't free software *today*. {25837}{25949}Our principle is that if you get the program you should get the source code. {25949}{26022}Now, I've already explained how, {26022}{26058}I'm, {26058}{26173}I'm willing to wait a year for it to become free software. {26173}{26276}I'd rather have that than have it *never* be free software. {26276}{26417}But *during that year*, I won't distribute the program. {26417}{26524}Uh, but you, you, formerly you said it doesn't matter if, if, how fast we do it, {26524}{26609}the main thing is getting it moving in the right direction. {26609}{26729}And some things could be very difficult to get from just free software, you need [a company behind it to organize it.] {26729}{26859}Well, it might be, s... Actually, I'm not convinced of that. {26859}{27030}I don't think that there's any project that *needs* a company behind it, we have done some *very big* projects. {27030}{27078}And some *very hard* projects. {27078}{27228}However, I will agree that having companies contributing is useful. {27228}{27374}That there will probably get *more* projects done if companies are contributing. {27374}{27552}And if there are going to be some companies that will make the pr, the so, the program *non-free* for the first year, {27552}{27660}I recognize that ultimately they will contribute. {27660}{27703}But, {27703}{27825}I won't distribute or recommend the new versions which aren't free yet. {27825}{27963}I will only recommend and distribute the versions that have become free. {27963}{28237}Because, we have to practice what we preach. You know, there's, there's too much willingness to compromise *any* possible principle, {28237}{28319}never hold *any* kind of line. {28319}{28511}And the problem is, if you do that, you don't teach *anybody* to stand firm about *anything*. {28511}{28616}And then they compromise away the whole goal. {28645}{28740}A more personal question: do you still get to code? {28740}{29020}No. No, I found somebody else to maintain Emacs, a few months ago, and, so now I have no programming responsibility. {29020}{29156}Once in a while I do a little bit of programming on Emacs. {29156}{29207}It's fun. {29207}{29294}But I don't have time for it very much. {29388}{29576}Me? You were earlier talking about the challenges that the FSF and GNU/Linux was facing, {29576}{29619}and, uh, {29619}{29726}you did mention that Microsoft didn't [unintelligible] with five time... {29726}{29786}you're stealing market shares from them. {29786}{30059}Well, yes, Microsoft threatens to use secret file formats, secret communication protocols, and software patents to hurt us. {30059}{30146}However, in fact, they wer, they were doing that for other reasons anyway. {30146}{30185}[laughter] {30185}{30207}So... {30207}{30343}What I'm asking is really: Is there a, is there a plan to counter-attack or {30343}{30552}There isn't! And what can we do? To, to deal with the secret formats and protocols the only thing we can do is reverse engineering. {30552}{30774}And, to deal with the software patents, the only thing we can do is try to fight to convince our governments not to allow software patents. {30774}{30790}Uh, {30790}{30825}In other words, {30825}{30938}Microsoft is doing those things, but they're not the only ones. {30938}{30961}So, in, {30961}{31141}instead of focusing narrowly on Microsoft in particular, let's look at the overall problem. You know, {31141}{31336}Microsoft's software patents don't hurt us any more than any, everybody else's software patents, they *all* are dangerous. {31336}{31500}So, rather than getting too much of our attention drawn specifically to Microsoft, {31500}{31590}and neglecting the danger from everywhere else, {31590}{31657}lets's look at the *whole* issue. So, {31657}{31761}if you fight, if you get politically organized and {31761}{31884}convince the Swedish government to oppose software patents, {31884}{32103}then that will help protect you from Microsoft's software patents, and from everybody else's software patents too. {32103}{32257}How about using, uh, non-free, non-free programs to aid the development of the free programs? {32257}{32432}For example using Java sm, the Sun's implementation of Java, uh, in order to aid your, your implementation of Java. {32432}{32478}Oh. Uh, the, {32478}{32585}I had to face the moral question at the beginning of the GNU project: {32585}{32742}Was it legitimate for us to use Unix to develop GNU? {32742}{32789}Because, {32789}{32988}being an ordinary user of a non-free program is, is participating in a secondary way {32988}{33062}in an immoral activity. {33062}{33251}And since we were trying to put an end to that, you know, our, our purpose was to urge people *not* to participate, {33251}{33321}I had to ask: {33321}{33432}Under what circumstances is it, is there an exception? {33432}{33613}And I concluded that since the purpose of our participation in the immorality of Unix {33613}{33733}was to bring *that very activity* to an end, {33733}{33782}that *that* justified it. {33782}{33853}Because our participation was secondary, {33853}{33964}and we were helping to enable other people to stop. {33964}{33995}However, {33995}{34155}I have decided that a m, a looser connection was not enough, so it's *not* enough to say: {34155}{34270}"It's OK for me to use Unix because I'm developing free software." {34270}{34427}You have to be working on *replacing* the *very non-free software that you're using* {34427}{34520}in order, in order to legitimize it. {34520}{34676}And so, a few years ago, when I had hand trouble, when I couldn't type; {34676}{34816}at first I thought "Well, maybe I'll get some kind of speech recognition system, {34816}{34987}and use that to enter my commands", but I found out that that included non-free software. {34987}{35136}And my first thought was that "maybe it's a hardware product", but, but there's a program you have to install on it. {35136}{35336}And, because I was *not* working on speech recognition software I decided it was *not ethical* for me to use {35336}{35508}this non-free speech recognition software, so I never used it. {35508}{35543}Eh, {35543}{35742}but software patents, then, have you thought about using software patents to eh, to *release* them? {35742}{35928}Yes, it's a, it's an, an idea that occurs to everyone, it's *much harder* done, than said. {35928}{36006}It's really hard to do a thing like that. {36006}{36053}And, uh, {36053}{36185}you can't expect to, to do anything like "copyleft" for patents. Uh, {36185}{36365}The reason is that copyright and patents are totally different, and copy... {36365}{36470}The idea of copyleft simply does not make sense for patents. {36470}{36607}What *could* make sense for patents is to, if somebody got a collection of patents, {36607}{36674}and then decided to use them {36674}{36793}as part of a collective security arrangement. {36793}{36887}Saying "We will use our patents only for defense", {36887}{36997}and "If you want to join us in a defensive alliance you're all welcome", {36997}{37235}and "Anybody who's willing to agree to support our alliance, and never use patents for aggression, is welcome". {37235}{37327}That kind of thing would have *some* effect. {37327}{37397}Nobody has ever got it started yet. {37397}{37653}The problem is, that in order for this alliance to be powerful it needs to have some, it needs to have members who have a lot of patents. And, {37653}{37810}We haven't yet found anybody with a l, with a lot of patents who wants to join. {37810}{37902}Tends to be big companies that have a lot of patents, {37902}{38055}and they, big companies tend to think that patents are advantageous *for them*, so, {38055}{38109}they don't join. {38109}{38329}Maybe someday w, some, we'll find an opportunity to start a thing like this. I don't know. {38329}{38627}Uh, don't you think, don't you think that the Open Source mov, movements serves an important role to get uh, business to abandon, uh, abandon non-free software, and embrace free software? {38627}{38647}Well, {38647}{38780}I think that the Open Source Movement *does* make a useful contribution. {38780}{38905}I don't exp, they *do* convince some businesses to start using {38905}{39042}free software, and they do convince some businesses to *develop* free software. {39042}{39191}I don't think that they will convince businesses to *abandon* non-free software, that's {39191}{39364}going very far, but they certainly already have accomplished some useful contributions. {39364}{39399}However, {39399}{39464}if that's *all* we have, {39464}{39647}if *everything* is focused on practical arguments to convince businesses, and *nobody* talks about freedom, {39647}{39752}to build up a political base for people to stand up for their rights, {39752}{39911}I think our commun, community is in terrible danger over the next few years. {39911}{40052}Uh, but don't you think that the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement complete each other? {40052}{40106}Yes, there is, there... {40106}{40242}We focus on, on one area and they focus on another. There is... {40242}{40329}It's useful to have a certain number of people {40329}{40492}focusing on convincing businesses that they can gain something by developing free software. {40492}{40655}But the *problem* is, that the Open Source movement sort of doesn't know where to stop! They're {40655}{40829}*actively* trying to convince *everyone* to join *them*, and *everybody* to say "open source". {40829}{40927}Part of the reason being that one of their leaders, Eric Raymond, {40927}{41042}really *doesn't* agree that this is a matter of freedom. So, {41042}{41226}he, for his own reasons, is *happy* to have people *not* talking about this as a matter of principle. {41226}{41252}Uh, {41252}{41370}So, the, the problem is that we may have *too much* of that, {41370}{41513}and not enough of this. See, it's good to invite people to *try* GNU/Linux {41513}{41620}for *any* reason, whatever reason will convince them, it's a good reason, {41620}{41758}but once they are using the system, *then* we have to educate them about the civics of our community. {41758}{41911}And, right now, *that's* the part where we are falling behind. {41911}{42102}So, everyone who *does* s, who *does* respond to the issue of freedom, {42102}{42327}you should be helping to talk about freedom as much as possible because there are plenty of other people to talk about purely practical issues. {42413}{42593}When it comes to software patents, are there any, uh, uh, projects or whatever you can call it {42593}{42685}about compiling cases of prior art to refute patents? {42685}{42728}That won't help. {42728}{42792}It won't help very much. {42792}{42886}Uh, yes, when, when somebody gets sued or threatened, {42886}{42956}then you need to collect some prior art. {42956}{43028}However, it's a mistake to think {43028}{43132}that having knowledge of the prior art will solve the problem. {43132}{43174}Because, {43174}{43240}The worst it, the most it can do {43240}{43319}is help prevent or deactivate {43319}{43399}the *invalid* patents. {43399}{43598}And that would still leave all the *valid* patents for all the ideas that really are new in the past 20 years. {43598}{43667}And that is enough to be devastating. {43667}{43677}Yes. {43677}{43744}So we must never get distracted {43744}{43808}by the issue of prior art {43808}{43934}into ignoring the danger posed by *valid* software patents. {43934}{44082}It's *much* more effective to work on convincing governments to reject software patents {44082}{44183}in places like Europe where there's a chance of doing that. {44183}{44279}So forget about prior art and help fight {44279}{44350}to stop the change in the Munich treaty. {44607}{44694}I knew that if I waited long enough, *somebody* would ask another question. {44694}{44850}What would happen if Europe says "no" to software patents and you have them in the US? {44850}{44925}Then Americans will be screwed by software patents {44925}{44964}and Europeans won't. {44964}{45010}[laughter] {45010}{45107}Won't get, won't uh, US companies get an advantage? {45107}{45136}No. {45136}{45188}Europea, US companies... {45188}{45353}Well, actually it has nothing to do with whether you're a US company or European company, it's totally irrelevant. {45353}{45524}Because patents have nothing to do with *where you are*, it has to do with where the software is being *used* or *distributed*. {45524}{45672}So, what it means is that *Americans* will be, will have to suffer with these monopolies, {45672}{45718}and Europeans won't. {45718}{45889}It'll mean, that the European software market or software users {45889}{46027}will be, will have the choice of multiple programs available including some that are free software, {46027}{46098}and americans will not. {46098}{46146}It will, however, {46146}{46241}as long as Europe does not have software patents, there will be {46241}{46384}programs being l, openly and lawfully distributed in Europe, {46384}{46546}which, if used, if distributed or used in the US would be infringement. {46546}{46713}However, the fact is, a lot of individuals will be able to get them from Europe, and use them, {46713}{46849}and the patent holders will never be able to find these individuals and sue them. {46849}{46958}So, in fact, a lot of americans will be helped as well. {46958}{47185}For example, right now, "BladeEnc", the MP3 encoder, is available, I think, in Sweden. Uh, {47185}{47302}You, it can't be distributed in the US, because there's a patent there. {47302}{47396}But, if you're an individual American, {47396}{47524}or for that matter, even a business, after all, how wi, how is the, the patent holder going to know? {47524}{47663}So, yeah, you can *get* BladeEnc and you can run it. {47663}{47833}It can't be distributed by the various people distributing the GNU/Linux system in America. {47833}{47890}Which is a serious problem. {47890}{48140}But, the situation is much better because Europe is there, to serve as a safe haven for these free programs. {48324}{48544}But the idea for, if you have an idea, would you be afraid of big companies keeping, uh, developing for themselves... {48544}{48635}I'm sorry, why would I be afraid of this? I publish my ideas; {48635}{48716}They're available to big companies and small ones, so, {48716}{48774}what is this strange assumption you're making? {48774}{48868}I mean the other way around, when big companies holding their ideas, when they, when they, {48868}{48937}when they can't take a patent on them, when they can't... {48937}{48991}I'm sorry, I can't hear you. When they *what*? {48991}{49101}Can't take a patent on them or when they can't say "this is worth of money", {49101}{49195}What keep them from just keeping the patent within the walls and... {49195}{49353}It doesn't matter that much. If they never tell me the idea, then, {49353}{49431}maybe somebody else will think of it. {49431}{49522}Or mayb, but a lot of these ideas are obvious, you know, you... {49522}{49587}Once you see the product, at least. {49587}{49658}When there, when a feature is patented, {49658}{49745}the fact is, if they're going to put this feature in some product, {49745}{49826}everybody who uses the product is going to see the feature. {49826}{49887}There's no possibility of keeping it secret. {49887}{50011}In other cases, when you're talking about, say, an algorithm for use within a program, {50011}{50097}there, it might not be possible to see it. {50097}{50287}But you, but it, you know, if it was really *that* important we could figure it out by reverse engineering. {50287}{50321}So, {50321}{50457}And a lot of these things are s, are things that multiple people discovered. {50457}{50501}That happens very often. {50501}{50565}In other fields as well, it's well known, {50565}{50743}that, uh, i, some of the great inventions of history had been invented by several people at about the same time. {50743}{50764}Uh, {50764}{50911}And the reason is essentially, there are certain precursors for that invention, {50911}{51053}and once the precursors are available, it becomes feasible to invent that thing. {51053}{51222}And it's going to happen. Now, when it's steam engine time, you steam. So, {51222}{51241}Uh, {51241}{51395}Basically, I don't think that that factor is a really important factor. In any case, {51395}{51555}what good is it to have them publish the idea if we can't use it 'til 20 years later? {51555}{51614}It might as well not exist. {51795}{51854}In fact, it's worse than that, because, {51854}{51987}if it didn't exist, proprietary software wouldn't be using it. {51987}{52041}But if it exists and it's patented, {52041}{52209}then there's proprietary software using it, and free software can not use it, so it acts as {52209}{52398}encouragement for people to give up their freedom, and not use free software. {52398}{52649}So I'd rather that they kept it a secret, personally, or, or that they dropped it in a hole in the ground and covered it over. {52770}{52835}Ah, there's nobody else... Anymore questions. {52835}{52904}Yeah, it's been a long time, so, uh... {52904}{53019}Eeh, thank you very much, I think you have given us a lot of, to think of. Eh, welcome... {53019}{53341}[applause] {53341}{53411}Japp! Lite information då, innan ni går ut. {53411}{53594}Eh, de här papprena som vi pratade om, de finns därute på bordet, det kommer att säljas lite t-shirtar, lite märken, och lite andra saker, böcker. {53594}{53634}Om man väntar en liten stund. {53634}{53651}Eh... {53651}{53778}Dessutom så kommer det säkert finnas möjlighet att bli medlem i DF om man inte redan är det, därnere. {53778}{53823}We have these stickers. {53823}{53908}Let's take them, all of these things should be up at the table there. {53908}{53926}That's all right. {53926}{53954}OK. There's, {53954}{54074}Take these stickers, if, as many as you've got a use for, {54074}{54341}and a good use for them is putting them anywhere where they will stay permanently or for some substantial period of time, so people might see them. {54341}{54448}If we could bring these up, right, let's bring them up now. {54448}{54493}Let's bring...