Richard Stallman at IITB

[Ruchir]

http://www.techfest.org/lectures/richard_stallman/

[Ravi Bhoraskar]

craxx!!

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Ruchir <ruchir...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.techfest.org/lectures/richard_stallman/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group for the Web and Coding Club of IIT Bombay.
The website for the club is http://gymkhana.iitb.ac.in/~science.
To post to this group, send email to wncc...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
wncc_iitb+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/wncc_iitb?hl=en_US?hl=en

--
Ravi Bhoraskar
Junior Undergraduate
Computer Science and Engineering
IIT Bombay

There is a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

[Harsh Pareek]

I noticed that a video of the lecture had been taken.

Could the relevant authorities please post a link to this video/share it on DC and put a magnet link here.
Also, please honour his license, and post it only in "friendly" formats.
@Conveners: please pass on this message to them in case they do not follow the group.

I would strongly recommend those who missed the lecture, eg. freshies due to CS 101 labs (and some of my batchmates due to TA duty in the same) or other reasons to see the video. Stallman is a wonderful speaker.

That said, I'd like to discuss one point in his lecture. 
Essentially, he wishes to relate the issue of software copyrights (and by extension, other intellectual copyrights) to the issue of Human Rights and Freedoms. The right to modify and redistribute software should be a Fundamental right.
In stringer terms, he wants that we should preserve rights for users of software much the same way as we preserve Human Rights (eg. by abolishing child labour and slavery), i.e. boycott these practices even if it leads to lower productivity, simply because it is important to preserve the user's rights
[The user must not be at the mercy of any corporation, the way we are currently at the mercy of Google]

Comments?

[Manas Joglekar]

And since gmail is a software service, it is evil, and hence his followers should stop using it.

Manas Joglekar
4th Year Undergraduate,
Computer Science and Engnineering Department,
IIT Bombay.

[kuldeep singh meel]

I think there is a flaw :

So do You mean that any book  of 100 pages should cost the same because I should just pay for the priniting.

Do you think that people at Google who are working overnight do not want their families to survive. We should never forget that why GNU was supported or why GNU emerged : Its because of Microsoft (or any other company which had the copyrights for softwares). Lets spread the philosophy of Richard to other fields also:

So lets abolish the patents. -> and someone who will just steal the art will sell at the same cost as of the one who thought of it

Lets abolish the copyrights of tunes , so lets modify the tunes a bit and  sell it under our name.

We shall never forget that the basic reason why IT progresses is because you know someone else will take your bread if you don't know how to control it and if everyone knows the technique to control it then how can you guarantee that the one who deserves has bread or not.

P.S. I could not attend the lecture. But looking at his site will make you to think that he is extremely intelligent, broad minded businessman who acts as narrow minded person to keep his buisness alive (e.g. his issue on Harry Potter books)

P.P.S. : I Use Ubuntu becoz it is better than windows for me not because it is open source (P.P.P.S. : I got an original copy of windows, so no piracy :)) 
Kuldeep Singh Meel
Junior Undergraduate
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Rice University '12 

IIT Bombay '12

[chinmay chauhan]

@Kuldeep +1

Chinmay.S.Chauhan
2nd year Undergraduate,
Computer Science and Engineering,
IIT-Bombay.

[Mayank Singhal]

@Kuldeep
According to Stallman, the issue that he's raising is not

about progress/comfort or utility. It's more about the values

of freedom of users.

So he knows that if everyone follows free software philosophy,

then may be the progress will be slow, but it will be free.

And yes most users use Ubuntu/Microsoft, not because of

the deeper values/reasoning but because of their unique

utilities.

Mayank Singhal

4th Year Dual Degree Student

[Prashant Sohani]

Personally, I feel that free software should replace proprietary, simply because it is a much better model for program development.. effectively, anybody in the whole world who wants to add to it, can do so.. bugs are fixed faster..
And we have living examples of that.. for eg. Apache outperforms all other proprienary competents hands down.
So it is not so much of the ethical side that drives me to support FSF; primarily only the "efficiency of development" side, if you call that.

[Harsh Pareek]

@Kuldeep
To give an analogy, Slavery and removing the minimum wage laws would lead to lower production costs, benefiting the consumers, but we consider human rights of workers more important.

The analogy is extreme, and the situation of consumers of software is not as sad (in a sense), but they do have very restricted rights over what they can do with the software they have bought, and are "trapped" by the propriety software. Eg. if windows suddenly decides to double the price of its operating system, all businesses would be forced to comply, because all their existing software works only on windows, perhaps their data is also locked by the software (eg. an encrypted database).
[He gave a good analogy - propriety software is like an addictive drug - creates dependency]

Stallman asserts that the large corporations have more power over our data than they should. [eg. Apple has a backdoor to remove any applications from your iPhone, without telling you, or asking your permission. I am not sure if they are required to reimburse you for the money you paid for the software]

@Prashant:
As stallman said, there is a difference between the "open source" and "free software" movement.
in that, the open source movement  considers efficiency the only important factor.
There is a downside to this:
People work on what they want to work on, so your favourite open source package may suddenly be unsupported because the developers no longer find it interesting. If a company sells it, there is lesser chance of this because the company has a rep. to maintain, and they charged you money for it.

[Santosh vattam]

> So do You mean that any book  of 100 pages should cost the same because I
> should just pay for the priniting.
> Do you think that people at Google who are working overnight do not want
> their families to survive. We should never forget that why GNU was supported
> or why GNU emerged : Its because of Microsoft (or any other company which
> had the copyrights for softwares). Lets spread the philosophy of Richard to
> other fields also:
> So lets abolish the patents. -> and someone who will just steal the art will
> sell at the same cost as of the one who thought of it
> Lets abolish the copyrights of tunes , so lets modify the tunes a bit and
>  sell it under our name.

Please note that RMS is not against copyrights. Copyrights cannot be
taken away from anyone and one automatically gets them when one writes
something on his own. The issue is not of copyrights, it is of
licensing. Copyrights don't determine the right of use to the
customers, it is licensing that does. And hence the GPL was created.
GPL is not copyrights, GPL is a license. The license determines who
can use a piece of software and how. RMS is not against charging for
software mind you. Free software doesn't mean free as in free beer, it
means free as in freedom. RMS suggests that once the customer has paid
for the software he/she has to be given the freedom to use it the way
they want to. To give you an analogy, consider you buy a refrigerator,
you pay for it and get a genuine one. Imagine the company placing
restrictions on what food items you keep in the refrigerator.
Proprietary licenses are like that. To give you an eg., you pay close
to Rs. 10000 and get yourself a 64gig iPod, how is it justified that
Apple tells you how to use it? You are not allowed to use it as a USB
disk. It is such restrictions that piss you off. RMS is not against
you paying Rs. 10k for the iPod mind you, he is against them not
letting you use the iPod as you want. That is licensing, it has
nothing to do with copyrights. As per patents, they're a completely
different ballgame. Continuing with the same iPod eg., if you have
followed the history of iPod, you will know that the idea of an iPod
hasn't come from Apple itself, yet Apple holds the patents for it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053152/Apple-admit-Briton-DID-invent-iPod-hes-getting-money.html

If you read that article you will come to know how dangerous patents
can be. You can patent anything and it doesn't matter who invented it.
And that is the problem with patents. With software patents it's
worse. Because software is nothing but a set of ideas and software
patents are patenting ideas. Imagine someone patented the bubble sort
algorithm. And you were not allowed to use it in your programs, or
worse what if you are not even allowed to learn how it works?

> We shall never forget that the basic reason why IT progresses is because you
> know someone else will take your bread if you don't know how to control it
> and if everyone knows the technique to control it then how can you guarantee
> that the one who deserves has bread or not.
> P.S. I could not attend the lecture. But looking at his site will make you
> to think that he is extremely intelligent, broad minded businessman who acts
> as narrow minded person to keep his buisness alive (e.g. his issue on Harry
> Potter books)
> P.P.S. : I Use Ubuntu becoz it is better than windows for me not because it
> is open source (P.P.P.S. : I got an original copy of windows, so no piracy
> :))

--
Thanks and Regards

Santosh G Vattam

Contributor RTEMS Testing

[Prashant Sohani]

@harsh.. i agree. So technically, I conform to the ideas of the open source movement and not the free software movement.

But as it so happens, the Software that are a part of the free software movement, are also fortunately bearing that same "efficiency of development" quality of open source movement, which happens to be the only parameter I care about. Hence, I may think like the open source guy, yet I am not averse to growth of free software.

As I see it, both open src and free movements give us the rights 0,1,2,3 that stallman talked of yesterday; differences being entirely ethical(which is just in the mind, so to say).

[Mayank Singhal]

@santosh
I would say it's the generosity of the inventor of bubble sort algo

that he didn't patent it. :P

Patents and proprietary softwares are necessary too;  RMS is

an extremist, most of us agree. It's a clash between socialistic

ideas and corporates. All the reasoning that RMS gave is valid

but the only problem is it may result in stagnation in technological

advancements (even RMS agreed to this). (and yes Apache 

is awesome but there are million others which are still not as

powerful/robust as their proprietary counterparts)

There should be a balance, both Free and proprietary softwares

can very well co-exist and in fact nurture each other's growth.

Cherrypicking open source code to closed source projects has

become an accepted practice, and the open source community

get enough funding, guidance and expertise in return.

(Basically I think, I would also go for OSS ideology :P)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group for the Web and Coding Club of IIT Bombay.
The website for the club is http://gymkhana.iitb.ac.in/~science.
To post to this group, send email to wncc...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
wncc_iitb+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/wncc_iitb?hl=en_US?hl=en

--

Mayank Singhal

4th Year Dual Degree Student

[Rohit Garg]

There is a difference between proprietary sw and sw patents.

SW patents are evil. Proprietary sw not so much.

--
Rohit Garg

http://rpg-314.blogspot.com/

[Antariksh Bothale]

Talking of the iPod, one comment on that page is interesting:

"This is ridiculous. The only thing Apple admitted was that it was
influenced by the user interface of this device. Notice how the
article mentions that this man's device was capable of 3.5 seconds of
audio playback? That's because none of the necessary technology -- D/A
conversion, miniature hard drives, data compression, truly portable
LCDs, etc. -- didn't [sic] exist.

Do you want to be an "inventor" like this guy? It's simple. Get
yourself some graph paper and some crayson [sic] and sketch out a
weightless, holographic audio player that's controlled telepathically.
And when such a device is actually created in the year 2090, feel free
to claim credit for it."

[Mayank Singhal]

@Rohit

SW Patents are evil?

Why are other patents not evil?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group for the Web and Coding Club of IIT Bombay.
The website for the club is http://gymkhana.iitb.ac.in/~science.
To post to this group, send email to wncc...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
wncc_iitb+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/wncc_iitb?hl=en_US?hl=en

[Shahansad K.P]

@bothale: ipod is it's user interface. infact that is the only thing unique about ipod in comparison with other players int he market. More over it is the only creative part in it. The concept of a portable player was already in existence way back (Walkman). The migration to digital media is just trivial.

I serously dout that the apple have a patent for  ipod relating to D/A conversion, miniature hard drives, data compression, truly portable LCDs, etc. After all all many other digital media player have exactly those or some thing that do the same.

I don't argue that this guy was the one who invented the iPod. I would under given information argue that he should be credited and paid some money by apple.

[kuldeep singh meel]

 I would probably go with Shahansad but that drives me to the point of asking a Pune investor/ E-cell to give me money as that investor has implemented exactly the same idea that our team presented in E-cell Ideas (@Ravi: I hope you are with me , atleast you won't deny money(if E-cell guys come out to help "budding" entrepreneurs who are in same situation as of the IPOD-guy). You guys have opened my eyes! and I hope E-Cell will help IITians!

@Santosh : Thanks for your email. Certainly it has restored some of the respect for RMS in my heart. 

@Harsh : I don't know what you were trying to do with analogy with Slavery. After a discussion with my Sociology Professor, I would like to share some conclusions with you. Slavery in no way produces better efficiency, if this would have been the case then most of the software companies would not have open timings. And neither does removing minimum wage because of GDP concepts (economic theory which can argue why minimum wage is required).

Kuldeep Singh Meel
Junior Undergraduate
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Rice University '12 

IIT Bombay '12

--

[Santosh vattam]

> I would say it's the generosity of the inventor of bubble sort algo
> that he didn't patent it. :P
> Patents and proprietary softwares are necessary too;  RMS is
> an extremist, most of us agree. It's a clash between socialistic
> ideas and corporates. All the reasoning that RMS gave is valid
> but the only problem is it may result in stagnation in technological
> advancements (even RMS agreed to this). (and yes Apache
> is awesome but there are million others which are still not as
> powerful/robust as their proprietary counterparts)
> There should be a balance, both Free and proprietary softwares
> can very well co-exist and in fact nurture each other's growth.
> Cherrypicking open source code to closed source projects has
> become an accepted practice, and the open source community
> get enough funding, guidance and expertise in return.
> (Basically I think, I would also go for OSS ideology :P)

I don't agree with the statement that the Proprietary software is a necessity.
My reasons:

As a customer, I am wiling to pay a software company for it's product
and also for it's services. The software industry is more of a service
driven industry than it is a product driven one. A product is just
created once and sold. Later on the company makes money by just
providing services on that product, such as updates, bug fixes, newer
versions, etc. And also the desktop user doesn't generate much of the
revenue for the industry. It's actually other companies (non-software)
that pay software companies to build software products for them and
then make money from it. This being the case the customer imho should
have the freedom of choosing whom he should be getting services from.
This freedom is not at all being provided with proprietary software.
If you buy a MS product, they obviously don't give you the source.
This being the case, you are bound to go to them and only them for the
services as well. MS have outsourced some of their services to
companies such as Wipro and TCS. Again you have no say in this, you
don't choose them, MS doesn't give you that choice. And all this with
absolutely no change in the money that you are paying. Isn't it
reasonable to ask for the freedom to choose from whom I get the
services if I am paying money anyway? People often mistake free
software as being free of cost, which is a big misconception. If that
was the case then FOSS companies wouldn't exist.

[Santosh vattam]

> There is a difference between proprietary sw and sw patents.

Yes they are, proprietary software is based on licensing and software
patents are patenting. Two entirely different concepts, comparing them
would be comparing apples and oranges.

[Shahansad K.P]

| A product is just
| created once and sold. Later on the company makes money by just
| providing services on that product, such as updates, bug fixes, newer

| versions, etc...

Major cost for a software company is developing the software. So it is highly unfair if for the company who develop the software if some other company independently start to giving support for the same. In fact this is the biggest argument for the nessasity of proprietary software.

| It's actually other companies (non-software)
| that pay software companies to build software products for them and
| then make money from it

To begin with the claim is not always true. Take a gaming industry of even the OS. In india we do use pirated software but don't generalist it. Even then what is the use of this fact in the argument you are making. Do you mean to say that a normal computer user have the right for free software and not a big company because the big company actually constitute a bigger market share?

[Mayank Singhal]

 not a big company because the big company actually constitute a bigger market share?

No actually what he meant was, biggest companies need some big customizations and they need it soon. For such customizations, they pay the developers. They can use the free version, but it's not good enough for them.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group for the Web and Coding Club of IIT Bombay.
The website for the club is http://gymkhana.iitb.ac.in/~science.
To post to this group, send email to wncc...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
wncc_iitb+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/wncc_iitb?hl=en_US?hl=en

[Vipul Chaudhary]

So according to you a company should rely on other companies to need customizations to actually start earning money?

[Shahansad K.P]

Ok so Microsoft produces Microsoft office because some company is going request Microsoft for a heavily customized Office at price which will justify the entire project??

What customization is actually done to a adobe photo-shop in use at companies??

[Tim John]

its something like film actors charging lakhs or even crores for a single film as acting fees. How do you justify it? By the profits the producers make. Since the actors were instrumental in making the profit, they rightfully deserve a large share.

another analogy - road tax. just how much tax you pay the govt depends on how you intend to use the car. You pay more if you use it as a taxi, less if its for personal use.

 similarly, some people use softwares to make money - others for personal use. You pay accordingly (in most cases) And most companies have student versions which cost less - here we have the MSDNAA - through which we get windows etc free. I'm not sure if IIT pays, but even if it does, its not the full amount.

One has to pay 4-5 lakhs for a decent car. No one really has complaints with that. just becoz a software fits into a compact disc doesnt make it less valuable than a car, does it?

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Shahansad K.P <shah...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok so Microsoft produces Microsoft office because some company is going request Microsoft for a heavily customized Office at price which will justify the entire project??

What customization is actually done to a adobe photo-shop in use at companies??

[Mayank Singhal]

@Vipul
Yeah that's what FOSS Companies do. They use donations till then

@Shahansad
Please don't use specific examples. We are discussing policies and not how MS Word/Photoshop will be sold. The thing is they would have been very different from current state had they been FOSS products. There would have been less features in the basic build and many add ons to add more functionality.

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Shahansad K.P <shah...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok so Microsoft produces Microsoft office because some company is going request Microsoft for a heavily customized Office at price which will justify the entire project??

What customization is actually done to a adobe photo-shop in use at companies??

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group for the Web and Coding Club of IIT Bombay.
The website for the club is http://gymkhana.iitb.ac.in/~science.
To post to this group, send email to wncc...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
wncc_iitb+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/wncc_iitb?hl=en_US?hl=en

[Mayank Singhal]

Yeah similarly take the example of an artist. He spends hours

conceptualizing a photograph, takes hundreds of pictures and

selects one and publishes it. Now he might want to make

money out of such an artwork and wouldn't want anyone else

to modify the contents of that picture. Is it not his right to do

so?

[Ankit Mittal]

@Tim - sw is very different from any other product car or whatever...

 car once sold is sold (the company now has one car less)

but sw once sold (to customers), the company still has the sw.

..

anyway just like this there are many things which differentiates software from a regular product that is bought.

so analogies are not at all appropriate when discussing sw patents/licensing issues.

thanks

ankit

[Prashant Sachdeva]

On 13 September 2010 18:47, Tim John <tim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> its something like film actors charging lakhs or even crores for a single
> film as acting fees. How do you justify it? By the profits the producers
> make. Since the actors were instrumental in making the profit, they
> rightfully deserve a large share.
>
> another analogy - road tax. just how much tax you pay the govt depends on
> how you intend to use the car. You pay more if you use it as a taxi, less if
> its for personal use.

No the analogies are not the same. FOSS never talks about services
being evil. Providing customized software as a service is not
something that the FOSS philosophy is against.
However, it does stand against the concept of limiting how people use
their software. Are you not pissed when the taxi guy refuses to go the
place where you want. And they're legally bound to provide service as
required by the customer within the given framework. Similarly, FOSS
just asks that if I'm buying a product, I should have the right to use
it the way I like it, build over it if need be and not be constrained
by the limited view of the company.

>
>  similarly, some people use softwares to make money - others for personal
> use. You pay accordingly (in most cases) And most companies have student
> versions which cost less - here we have the MSDNAA - through which we get
> windows etc free. I'm not sure if IIT pays, but even if it does, its not the
> full amount.

Hitting someone with a small stone instead of a rock does not change
the fact that the person is hitting you. It really isnt the amount
that FOSS stands against, but the required payment without providing
the freedom required from the product is itself the problem.

>
> One has to pay 4-5 lakhs for a decent car. No one really has complaints with
> that. just becoz a software fits into a compact disc doesnt make it less
> valuable than a car, does it?

No, it doesnt make it less valuable. But when you get a car, you are
not told that you can't have a non family member sitting in your car,
do they?

And again, "Think free as in free speech, not free beer".

-Prashant

[Santosh vattam]

>> One has to pay 4-5 lakhs for a decent car. No one really has complaints with
>> that. just becoz a software fits into a compact disc doesnt make it less
>> valuable than a car, does it?
> No, it doesnt make it less valuable. But when you get a car, you are
> not told that you can't have a non family member sitting in your car,
> do they?
>
> And again, "Think free as in free speech, not free beer".

Precisely my point. A car once sold to you is yours. You may do
whatever you want with it. You can go to a garage and get it
customized, fit it with a turbocharger, modify the body, add spoilers
etc. And you don't have to do it at the place you bought the car or
even with the same company. That kind of freedom is precisely what
proprietary software lacks.

[Santosh vattam]

> Major cost for a software company is developing the software. So it is
> highly unfair if for the company who develop the software if some other
> company independently start to giving support for the same. In fact this is
> the biggest argument for the nessasity of proprietary software.

Not entirely true. Once a product is developed the developers are not
fired off nor are their salaries reduced. The amount spent by a
company will continue to be the same even after the product has been
developed. So they need to keep generating revenue even after the
product has been developed and this is done by providing support. The
revenue generated by services far exceeds the revenue generated by
products. Hence you see a lot more service based software companies
than product based ones.

> | It's actually other companies (non-software)
> | that pay software companies to build software products for them and
> | then make money from it
>
> To begin with the claim is not always true. Take a gaming industry of even
> the OS. In india we do use pirated software but don't generalist it. Even
> then what is the use of this fact in the argument you are making. Do you
> mean to say that a normal computer user have the right for free software and
> not a big company because the big company actually constitute a bigger
> market share?

You are thinking of free software as free of cost. That is not what I
mean. I mean that the revenue generated by a desktop user assuming he
is paying for all the software that he is using is still not
comparable to what a non-software company generates.

[Mayank Singhal]

Why are you comparing Software with a Physical product like a car?

Car is owned, softwares and services are licensed.

Reason is simple: say I spend 50 years making a software and I sell it

to person X and person X simply distribute it to every single potential

customer that I can have. That would be a disaster for me. And that is

why I license my software product to that person and not sell it. You

may say that if one pays for a product then one should have all the 

rights, well then I will charge not for one copy but for distribution rights.

X will be charged 1000 times more!

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group for the Web and Coding Club of IIT Bombay.
The website for the club is http://gymkhana.iitb.ac.in/~science.
To post to this group, send email to wncc...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
wncc_iitb+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/wncc_iitb?hl=en_US?hl=en

--

[Tim John]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Santosh vattam <vattam....@gmail.com> wrote:

i agree that modifications to the software you buy should be allowed - and one must be allowed to use it the way he wants.  But giving the source code away is like giving it all away. A car has a lot more to it that just what you see under the bonnet i.e. you cant really make a car of your own by dismantling a car piece by piece and recreating your own version from what you learn. But with the source code in hand, you have it all... and so a novel idea you came up with, becomes public property. And anyone with the source code can use it in his own program. It's like on auto company going into the RnD labs of another company (say Merc) and getting all their trade secrets.

--
Thanks and Regards

Santosh G Vattam

Contributor RTEMS Testing

--

[Mayank Singhal]

I mean that the revenue generated by a desktop user assuming he
is paying for all the software that he is using is still not
comparable to what a non-software company generates.

Still it doesn't mean that proprietary softwares are bad. And I agree

that providing service is one of the major source of revenue for many

companies and that initial development cost might be less than

the cost of service (Really? I seriously doubt that) but the question

is why would I develop a product and distribute it for free and with all

the source code and documentation and everything if some other

firm can simply start providing service for my product eating of my

revenue share?

Many(if not most or all) FOSS companies have 2 branches, one

with free and open source softwares and the other with 

closed-secure-robust softwares that they

license to those who need them. They port or cherry pick features

from the free version (half of the code is from developers outside

the firm, it's a good testing platform for the closed code software

too) to the closed enterprise edition.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group for the Web and Coding Club of IIT Bombay.
The website for the club is http://gymkhana.iitb.ac.in/~science.
To post to this group, send email to wncc...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
wncc_iitb+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/wncc_iitb?hl=en_US?hl=en

[Prashant Sachdeva]

On 13 September 2010 19:36, Mayank Singhal <manku....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I mean that the revenue generated by a desktop user assuming he
> is paying for all the software that he is using is still not
> comparable to what a non-software company generates.
> Still it doesn't mean that proprietary softwares are bad. And I agree
> that providing service is one of the major source of revenue for many
> companies and that initial development cost might be less than
> the cost of service (Really? I seriously doubt that) but the question
> is why would I develop a product and distribute it for free and with all
> the source code and documentation and everything if some other
> firm can simply start providing service for my product eating of my
> revenue share?

You should ask this question to IBM and a dozen other companies who
invest in developing open source code. And license it under GPL.
Basically, the FOSS model is a great model to work under even for
companies as long as we are concerned about software that has a lot of
common usage. When it comes to customized software, or software built
for very specific purposes, you may put the argument of why would I
like to loose my hold on something I invested a lot of time on, and
which I quite agree with, for the lack of a way to give away the code
and yet keep the methods developed secret and prevent them from being
replicated without due credit.

But then again, a large set of people in the academia produce their
research as open source.

> Many(if not most or all) FOSS companies have 2 branches, one
> with free and open source softwares and the other with
> closed-secure-robust softwares that they

Correction: By definition, they are not FOSS companies. The open
source copy of their software that they provide can of course be built
upon, but cant be licensed in GPL or equivalent FOSS compatible
licenses I believe.

[Mayank Singhal]

@Prashant
Example:Open Office is LGPL

and StarOffice is one of the proprietary software developed on the codebase

[Prashant Sachdeva]

My mistake ... got confused.

-Prashant

[Mayank Singhal]

@Prashant

Actually all good proprietary softwares provide enough

customizations too, enough so that the user is able to

use them without hassle and there is not a major

software bloat. Giving code away, is just not possible in

many cases for it's not the idea that matter but also the

implementation. Giving it away would be a great social

service but no firm would do it if they don't have another

way to generate profit from it.

There are three things that IBM and the dozen other firms

get from investing in FOSS: (1) A good name (2) Possible

hires (3) Free code(or at least implementation ideas) that

they can use.

Academics release their code in public domain for many

reasons: (1) It's cool and trendy (2) It's not their source of

earning money (3) The code is initially crap, the idea is

good but the implementation is not good. So, only if the

code gets a little too popular, does the implementation

changes and the code is rewritten :P

cool

[Prashant Sachdeva]

On 13 September 2010 20:20, Mayank Singhal <manku....@gmail.com> wrote:
> @Prashant

> Actually all good proprietary softwares provide enough
> customizations too, enough so that the user is able to
> use them without hassle and there is not a major
> software bloat. Giving code away, is just not possible in
> many cases for it's not the idea that matter but also the
> implementation. Giving it away would be a great social
> service but no firm would do it if they don't have another
> way to generate profit from it.

Incorrect, as stated above, a huge number of firms get their profit
essentially from consulting and enterprise services and not from the
sales of their software directly.

> There are three things that IBM and the dozen other firms
> get from investing in FOSS: (1) A good name

Most people do not care whether they release it open source or not.
> (2) Possible hires
Didnt get this point

> (3) Free code(or at least implementation ideas) that

Yes that is the major motivation, a strong well tested code bench.
They reap the rewards of the community as a whole and that is the way
FOSS sees it, a community to help you, who is a part of that
community, work better.

> they can use.

> Academics release their code in public domain for many
> reasons: (1) It's cool and trendy (2) It's not their source of
> earning money (3) The code is initially crap, the idea is
> good but the implementation is not good. So, only if the
> code gets a little too popular, does the implementation
> changes and the code is rewritten :P

Only the 2nd point is true and third to some extent.
A fallback of the second point is that most profs do produce research
of quality that can earn them a lot of money.
But a major reason, I believe, behind why academics release their work
openly is because they have, as expected, an academic view point on it
and releasing it only allows for more people to have an opportunity to
learn.

[Mayank Singhal]

Incorrect, as stated above, a huge number of firms get their profit
essentially from consulting and enterprise services and not from the
sales of their software directly.

Sure, a lot of companies do that. But a lot of companies don't!

We cannot just discard them because they corrupt the statistical

arguments we have been making in the discussion

There are three things that IBM and the dozen other firms
> get from investing in FOSS: (1) A good name

Most people do not care whether they release it open source or not.

Yes, but the software community does.

> (2) Possible hires
Didnt get this point

It works this way, you release a open source application

dozens of developers work on it. You spot 5 with brilliant

skills and devotion; you hire them to work on your other

proprietary products as well although promising that they

can still spend 15-50% of their time on the Open Source

project they were working on before.

> (3) Free code(or at least implementation ideas) that

Yes that is the major motivation, a strong well tested code bench.
They reap the rewards of the community as a whole and that is the way
FOSS sees it, a community to help you, who is a part of that
community, work better.

No that's how Open Source Community sees it, FSF

calls this immoral.

About the academics:

1) It's cool and trendy:

 - If I am making a code, that in itself is not a very powerful

code but when added to that of a 100 other coders becomes

a good application that people would use, I feel awesome.

So it is cool.

 - Working on Open Source Projects gives one experience

to work on big projects that is considered a major benefit

during hiring. A lot of firms take this point very seriously.

Also I do it, because that learned senior of mine did and

also got placed well.

So it's trendy.

And that's how a lot of people think. OS forums are full

of students who are working on the codebase not to for the

moral values but for experience and even resume point.

2) Money Source

They do research, yes. And then they present it publicly in

big conferences. One of the rewards of doing good work is

respect and fame. Money isn't the only motivator.

Also I agree that most of the professors release their work

in public domain for others to learn, their research projects

are funded from elsewhere; donations from corporates or

government. And it is their duty (moral and I think, legal) to

not sell it.

[Manav Kataria]

Yeh sab to theek hai! Kisi ko photos mile ki nahi? 

[Rohit Garg]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Mayank Singhal
<manku....@gmail.com> wrote:
> @Rohit
> SW Patents are evil?
Because sw patents are actually patents on algorithms and mathemetics

> Why are other patents not evil?
Because other patents on physical machines and not on abstract ideas.

>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Antariksh Bothale
> <antariks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Talking of the iPod, one comment on that page is interesting:
>>
>> "This is ridiculous. The only thing Apple admitted was that it was
>> influenced by the user interface of this device. Notice how the
>> article mentions that this man's device was capable of 3.5 seconds of
>> audio playback? That's because none of the necessary technology -- D/A

>> conversion, miniature hard drives, data compression, truly portable

>> LCDs, etc. -- didn't [sic] exist.
>>
>> Do you want to be an "inventor" like this guy? It's simple. Get
>> yourself some graph paper and some crayson [sic] and sketch out a
>> weightless, holographic audio player that's controlled telepathically.
>> And when such a device is actually created in the year 2090, feel free
>> to claim credit for it."

>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Group for the Web and Coding Club of IIT Bombay.
>> The website for the club is http://gymkhana.iitb.ac.in/~science.
>> To post to this group, send email to wncc...@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> wncc_iitb+...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/wncc_iitb?hl=en_US?hl=en
>
>
>
> --
> Mayank Singhal
> 4th Year Dual Degree Student
> Computer Science and Engineering
> IIT Bombay
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Group for the Web and Coding Club of IIT Bombay.
> The website for the club is http://gymkhana.iitb.ac.in/~science.
> To post to this group, send email to wncc...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> wncc_iitb+...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/wncc_iitb?hl=en_US?hl=en
>

--
Rohit Garg

http://rpg-314.blogspot.com/

[Antariksh Bothale]

Are you sure?

Even in the case of a physical machine, the patent is basically for the idea, implemented of course. afaik, when you patent, you bring your invention to public domain in exchange of securing exclusive rights of actually selling it or capitalizing on it (for some time)

So, LG thinks of Door Cooling, and makes a refrigerator based on it, and gets a 15 year patent, meaning that they explain how they did it, and then not let anyone else do it for 15 years.

So, as I see it, if I patent Bubble Sort, I tell the world how my BS algorithm works and the patent won't let any one else earn money by implementing this algorithm.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Antariksh Bothale
Institute Secretary for International Relations
4th Year, Mechanical Engineering
IIT Bombay

[Susmit Saraswat]

Sounds about right, though I think you needn't have an implementation to get a patent. That's how a large bulk of software "intellectual property" is founded these days -- I get an idea that doing so and so and so might prevent a system from a DDoS attack, so I promptly get it patented, and start implementing it.

But the real reason why I responded was because the usage of the term "BS" to denote Bubble Sort made me giggle.

[Antariksh Bothale]

It was an intended pun, though it came to me just after I wrote BS :P

As for implementation, I was talking more about normal patents. Though even there, I think, there might be possibilities of patenting an idea if it has been explained and laid out in detail. 

So yeah, the point was this- the people who claimed that software patenting is immoral/bad/wrong (I am sick of the word evil)... do they also claim that normal patenting is wrong too? If not, on what grounds do they grant this privilege to people who make novel refrigerators but deny it to those who come up with search algorithms?

[Rohit Garg]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Antariksh Bothale
<antariks...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are you sure?
> Even in the case of a physical machine, the patent is basically for the
> idea, implemented of course. afaik, when you patent, you bring your
> invention to public domain in exchange of securing exclusive rights of
> actually selling it or capitalizing on it (for some time)

No and yes. If you read the patent documents, you'll realize in how
much of a detail machines have to be described. Which is why physical
ideas can't be patented, only a particular embodiment of it.

> So, as I see it, if I patent Bubble Sort, I tell the world how my BS
> algorithm works and the patent won't let any one else earn money by
> implementing this algorithm.

With software, situation is drastically different. Everybody agrees
that patents on things like pythagoras theorem, gravity should not be
granted. Which is why sw patents are written quite differently.
Topological sort, for instance was patented under the name of "natural
order calculation in a spreadsheet". The reference was to spreadsheet
alone to get the patent and the result was anyone using topological
sort was infringing that patent, even if he wasn't doing spreadsheets.

Sw patents are equivalent to patenting bits of mathematics and
preventing others from using it. Sort of like proving the Riemann's
hypothesis and preventing anyone from using it. Which is why they are
evil. Think about it, just how much sense a patent on the value of pi,
gauss-jordan elimination, quantum mechanics or bubble sort makes?

The problem isn't the idea of patents, but the consequences of letting
anybody wall off a small bit of natural laws.

[Mayank Singhal]

So what you are saying is that a fundamental breakthrough is not

patentable? I disagree that SWs should not be patented. We are 

not talking about patenting Bubble Sort(even if we are, my argument

remain the same).

A lot of research goes even in case of making softwares. What is

that makes this research more crucial for social-technical growth

than hardware research? Door cooling, the idea, was also patented

not just the physical implementation of it. If we go by the no-patent

for ideas ideology, it will be hard for companies to justify their

expenditure on research to their stockholders :)

[Antariksh Bothale]

Small edit:

the fact that walling off the sorting algorithm will make
bits of math inaccessible for a few years is indeed a pro-advancement
viewpoint

Even this pro-advancement viewpoint is a very myopic one, since removing incentives will actually retard the machinery in the long run.

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Antariksh Bothale <antariks...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think there can always be some sort of decision-making while giving
these patents too. Probably what makes s/w patenting look more evil is
because you are giving people exclusive rights over intangible things
like algorithms instead of tangible machines. Also because the
implications of walling off bits of Mathematics and Physics are
probably more dire as compared to making a particular
invention/contraption exclusive.

But this does not change the philosophy behind patenting -
incentivising invention. A person who comes up with a brilliant
sorting algorithm that revolutionises the way we we handle data
deserves as big a piece of the pie as the person who comes up with a
brilliant mouse trap that revolutionises the way we handle the problem
of pests - the fact that walling off the sorting algorithm will make
bits of math inaccessible for a few years is indeed a pro-advancement
viewpoint, but it certainly does not make s/w patenting wrong.

In fact, the fact that it is so much easier to copy s/w than to copy
physical inventions should motivate us to come up with better measures
to secure people's IPRs.




On Monday, September 20, 2010, Mayank Singhal <manku....@gmail.com> wrote:
> So what you are saying is that a fundamental breakthrough is notpatentable? I disagree that SWs should not be patented. We are not talking about patenting Bubble Sort(even if we are, my argumentremain the same).
> A lot of research goes even in case of making softwares. What isthat makes this research more crucial for social-technical growththan hardware research? Door cooling, the idea, was also patented
> not just the physical implementation of it. If we go by the no-patentfor ideas ideology, it will be hard for companies to justify theirexpenditure on research to their stockholders :)

>>> >> To unsubscribe from t--
> Mayank Singhal4th Year Dual Degree Student
> Computer Science and EngineeringIIT Bombay

>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Group for the Web and Coding Club of IIT Bombay.
> The website for the club is http://gymkhana.iitb.ac.in/~science.
> To post to this group, send email to wncc...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> wncc_iitb+...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/wncc_iitb?hl=en_US?hl=en
>

--

[Antariksh Bothale]

I think there can always be some sort of decision-making while giving
these patents too. Probably what makes s/w patenting look more evil is
because you are giving people exclusive rights over intangible things
like algorithms instead of tangible machines. Also because the
implications of walling off bits of Mathematics and Physics are
probably more dire as compared to making a particular
invention/contraption exclusive.

But this does not change the philosophy behind patenting -
incentivising invention. A person who comes up with a brilliant
sorting algorithm that revolutionises the way we we handle data
deserves as big a piece of the pie as the person who comes up with a
brilliant mouse trap that revolutionises the way we handle the problem
of pests - the fact that walling off the sorting algorithm will make
bits of math inaccessible for a few years is indeed a pro-advancement
viewpoint, but it certainly does not make s/w patenting wrong.

In fact, the fact that it is so much easier to copy s/w than to copy
physical inventions should motivate us to come up with better measures
to secure people's IPRs.

On Monday, September 20, 2010, Mayank Singhal <manku....@gmail.com> wrote:

> So what you are saying is that a fundamental breakthrough is notpatentable? I disagree that SWs should not be patented. We are not talking about patenting Bubble Sort(even if we are, my argumentremain the same).
> A lot of research goes even in case of making softwares. What isthat makes this research more crucial for social-technical growththan hardware research? Door cooling, the idea, was also patented
> not just the physical implementation of it. If we go by the no-patentfor ideas ideology, it will be hard for companies to justify theirexpenditure on research to their stockholders :)

>>> >> To unsubscribe from t--
> Mayank Singhal4th Year Dual Degree Student
> Computer Science and EngineeringIIT Bombay

[Rohit Garg]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Mayank Singhal <manku....@gmail.com> wrote:
> So what you are saying is that a fundamental breakthrough is not
> patentable? I disagree that SWs should not be patented. We are
> not talking about patenting Bubble Sort(even if we are, my argument
> remain the same).

If the fundamental breakthrough is regarding natural laws or
mathematics, then no, the patent should not be granted. Perhaps you
should imagine "owning" a patent on electron yourselves to get some
perspective. Or better still, someone patenting an "electron" and
forcing you to not use it. Just try to contemplate these scenarios
before you reply.

Patents on specific "objects" like chemical molecules or mechanical
machines are quite different.

> A lot of research goes even in case of making softwares. What is
> that makes this research more crucial for social-technical growth
> than hardware research? Door cooling, the idea, was also patented
> not just the physical implementation of it. If we go by the no-patent
> for ideas ideology, it will be hard for companies to justify their
> expenditure on research to their stockholders :)

Baloney, sw world got on just fine without patents for ~4 decades.
Google created Android and is making money from it hands over fist.
And it doesn't have patents on it. Go figure. How many patents do you
think Facebook owns? How many patents do you think Diaspora owns (or
will file for) ? In the real world, sw patents are used as a stick by
the mega corps to retard competition. How many patents do you think
Canonical owns? How many did the FOSS community need in creating the
entire FOSS ecosystem? FOSS is commercially relevant, and many
for-profit, publicly owned corporations get on fine with it. Just
check out the balance sheet of Red Hat if you have doubts.

Also, lots of innovation (but perhaps not as much) will happen even if
there are ZERO IP laws. Think about all the mathematics you have
learnt in IIT. How much money do you think Euler made?

[Mayank Singhal]

I don't know the latest data but
FB filed for at least 46 Patents by January 24th 2010 [Ref: http://www.seobythesea.com/?p=3365]

Google's Patents: 187 granted till March 4 2009 [Ref: http://www.seobythesea.com/?p=1138 & http://www.arnoldit.com/lists/google-patents.asp]

    ^ More than 100 are Software patents

No idea about diaspora.

[Mayank Singhal]

This [http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/02/google-takes-he/] says google is

making zero money from android.

[Mayank Singhal]

Canonical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Ltd.#Business_plans

[And sorry for not replying in one mail :P]

[Rohit Garg]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Mayank Singhal
<manku....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know the latest data but
> FB filed for at least 46 Patents by January 24th 2010
> [Ref: http://www.seobythesea.com/?p=3365]

And none of those patents are/were valid while FB was growing like
crazy. IOW, patent exclusivity has had nothing to do with FB's growth
so far.

> Google's Patents: 187 granted till March 4 2009
> [Ref: http://www.seobythesea.com/?p=1138 & http://www.arnoldit.com/lists/google-patents.asp]
>     ^ More than 100 are Software patents

How many of those patents cover android? Not many, I'd say.

[Rohit Garg]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Mayank Singhal
<manku....@gmail.com> wrote:
> This [http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/02/google-takes-he/] says google
> is
> making zero money from android.

It does not say that. It says Google makes no money (neither does
Apple, for that matter) from Android Market. Google's source of
profits from Android lies elsewhere.

[Rohit Garg]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Mayank Singhal
<manku....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Canonical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Ltd.#Business_plans

I don't see any patents there.

[Antariksh Bothale]

I think he wanted to point out the fact that Canonical is not a profitable company yet.

[Shahansad K.P]

Thinking abt android i cannot but say that if  not for the patent on page rank (exclusive license rights on the patent from Stanford University) google just wont be here 2day.

[Rohit Garg]

How has the patent exclusivity helped them?

[Shahansad K.P]

the moment that this algorithm was shown to do wonders others then like yahoo would have started to use it and had yahoo been as good as Google it is unlikley that some one would have moved over to google from yahoo.

[Rohit Garg]

And what do you think made Google publish their pagerank algorithm?
After all, it worked wonders? Same goes for mapreduce, bigtable etc.
Why did they publish these algorithms.

Think about it. The answer might surprise you.

[Shahansad K.P]

some goes for mapreduce, bigtabl.. who are they??  i don't use them so does the majority. => page rank did wonders. May be itdoesn't do it anymore. but it was the reason that google could get ahead in the race which it started too late...

Why did they publish these algorithms?.. You need to publish the algorithm to get patent... To best of my knowledge it was part of their academic work. They had no idea how good it was. they tried to sell it :)

All major discover will be published/made public for getting the patent. it is otherwise possible that some one reverse engineer the product or accidentally rediscovering it and patent it depriving the original guy from using it.

[Rohit Garg]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Shahansad K.P <shah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> some goes for mapreduce, bigtabl.. who are they??  i don't use them so does
> the majority. => page rank did wonders. May be itdoesn't do it anymore. but
> it was the reason that google could get ahead in the race which it started
> too late...

Anybody who uses google uses them. :)

> Why did they publish these algorithms?.. You need to publish the algorithm
> to get patent... To best of my knowledge it was part of their academic work.
> They had no idea how good it was. they tried to sell it :)

AFAICS, they published these algorithms to prevent other people from
patenting page rank multiple times. Yes, it happens. All the time.
Same thing patented over and over again is especially prevalent in sw
due to it's nature. Also, I hope you are not suggesting that they
published it because they were trying to sell it. They bloody well
knew how good it was. It's just that nobody else realized how valuable
it was.

> All major discover will be published/made public for getting the patent. it
> is otherwise possible that some one reverse engineer the product or
> accidentally rediscovering it and patent it depriving the original guy from
> using it.

With no sw patents, it simply won't happen. Trade secret law and
copyright law are plenty good protections for software. Sw people used
them for decades and were quite happy with it.

Besides, how exactly, do you reverse engineer an algorithm whose
output you can get only at a human rate (google can and does block
bots issuing search requests), and whose input changes at the speed of
the web. Not to mention the scale of the input.