_______________________________________________________ | | | January 1992 -==- Volume I Number 2 | | | | PROGRAMMING FREEDOM | | league@prep.ai.mit.edu | | | | The Electronic Newsletter of | | The League for Programming Freedom | | 1 Kendall Sq #143, POBox #9171, Cambridge MA 02139 | | Phone: (617) 243-4091 (voicemail only-leave your | |address or phone number, and we'll answer your query)| | Editor: Spike R. MacPhee (spiker@prep.ai.mit.edu) | | Reproduction of Programming Freedom via all | | electronic media is encouraged. | | To reproduce a signed article individually, | | please contact the author for permission. | |_____________________________________________________| <><><><><> TABLE OF CONTENTS <><><><><> Annual meeting minutes, election results: Board of Advisors approved News: a Math Programming Society committee takes stand against patents Help publicize the League by writing to magazines - Johnathan Vail LPF magazine publicity: Jan CACM, Jan SunExpert, Feb Embedded Systems Mail, localgroups, signature publicity League-activists mailing list is now moderated President Larsen speaks at Oct CPSR - Adam J Richter LPF at ARISIA sf con in Boston - Johnathan Vail LPF convention publicity rms response to editor's comments on Nov Kennedy article GATT Treaty Excerpts - commentary by Richard M. Stallman Final results of the direct mailing experiment LPF Boutique <><><> Annual meeting minutes; Board of Advisors approved <><><> Minutes of the 1991 Annual Meeting of the LPF Introduction: The following is the record of the League for Programming Freedom's 1991 annual meeting as reported by LPF Secretary Christian D. Hofstader. The meeting was recorded by Sara Thompson, visual assistant to Chris Hofstader. The Minutes: The meeting was called to order by Chris Hofstader at 20:15 on December 15, 1991 at Tech Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts. As senior officer in attendance Chris Hofstader chaired the meeting. First order of business was to take attendance and establish a quorum of the directors and the membership. In attendance: Directors: Chris Hofstader Steven Sisak Richard Stallman Notable others: Spike MacPhee - LPF coordinator 2 public members. Notable absentees: Jack Larsen - LPF President Guy Steele - Director Having three of the five directors established a quorum. The mail in proxies established a quorum of the membership. The second order of business was the reading of the minutes of the 1990 annual meeting. This was done by Spike. The third order of business was the issue of whether to adopt a policy governing the spending of LPF funds. Spike read the policy and a vote of the Directors in attendance accepted the policy. The vote count was 3 yes and 2 absent. Jack Larsen submitted an objection to the policy prior to the meeting and also prior to the meeting Guy Steele submitted his approval of the policy. For a copy of the policy send a request to Spike. The fourth order of business was presented by Chris Hofstader who offered to withdraw his resignation as Secretary and Director. The vote was 3 in favor, 2 absent. Chris will remain as Secretary and Director of the LPF. The board meeting portion of the annual meeting was declared over. The fifth order of business was a debate over the bylaws regarding the ex officio director. The debate was over the meaning of the language "immediate past president" and whether or not Richard Stallman still had voting rights as a Director of the LPF. A motion was made to change the bylaws to make this language more clear. It was decided that this should be done at a special meeting of the board. The sixth order of business was a confirmation that an online copy of the bylaws would soon be available. The seventh order of business was a report on the direct mailing delivered by Spike MacPhee. Seven people joined at $75 to receive a coffee mug, 3 people joined at the standard membership of $42, 1 person joined as a student member $10.50 and 3 people sent us $1 for a position paper. There were 2 people who complained about getting mail. There was a net loss of $160 on the mailing. It was determined that $160 was reasonable to reach 4000 people. There was a continued discussion of whether or not to use this tactic again and which list we should use in the future. It was generally decided that we likely will do another direct mailing. The eighth order of business was a discussion of local working groups. We discussed how this may be implemented. The ninth order of business was a discussion of changing our voice mail system. Ideas presented included leasing an actual office and getting a voice mail/fax modem system in a computer. It was agreed that we should remain using the gnu offices at MIT. The largest problem concerning changing our service would be whether or not we could maintain the same number. The tenth order of business was the Treasurer's report delivered by Steve Sisak. The LPF's 1991 income was $27,585.12, the expenses for the year totalled $15,805.50, the net annual income was 12,779.62. A detailed report is available from Steve Sisak. [see expenses below] The eleventh order of business was a discussion of finding a lawyer who would be more responsive to the relatively small needs of the LPF. Steve Sisak was put in charge of this task. The twelfth order of business was a discussion of the taxes that we need to pay. The rate that we will pay is 25% and the exact details are being worked out by Steve Sisak along with our accountant and lawyer. The thirteenth order of business was the annual election of officers, directors and adoption of resolutions. With Richard Stallman withdrawing from the election all officers and directors were running unopposed and therefore were all elected. 1992 Officers: Biggest expenses 1992: Jack Larsen - President 4076 printing Christian D. Hofstader - Secretary 2573 op exps Steve Sisak - Treasurer 2030 buttons, tshirts Directors: 1630 coordinator pay Les Earnest 792 direct mail postage Chris Hofstader 604 postage Jack Larsen (as president) 226 publicity Steve Sisak 60 bank charges Richard Stallman (ex officio) 13 office supplies The question to add a board of advisors passed 190 - 1, w/4 abstained. The final order of business was a statement for the record by Chris Hofstader of his disappointment with the poor attendance at the annual meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 22:30 EST. <> <><><> News: MPS committee takes patent stand <><><> A committee of the Mathematical Programming Society has taken a stand against patents and Steve Robinson sends a note about the appendices: As you might know,... we added as one of the appendices to our report a paper by the League (with permission), and we gave in the report the mail and email address for people to contact the League. I hope it generates some interest. The appendices were printed in the special issue of OPTIMA in which the report ran, but were not reprinted in the SIAM NEWS. <> <> Help publicize the League: write to magazines - Johnathan Vail <> In response to an article in Embedded Systems Programming magazine about legal issues in programming I wrote a letter to point out the importance of some issues I thought were glossed over. It was not a flame or an argument but merely to point out that software patents are the most important legal issue facing programmers. I mentioned contacting the LPF for more information. The letter was published in the recent February 92 issue under the column heading "Free Our Software". I am not sure what the title refers to exactly since the first letter in the column was about freedom of source code and mentioned the GNU philosophy. Anyway, many thanks to Daniel La Liberte, Michael Ernst, Paul Eggert, Jonathan Ryshpan, and Greg Buzzard for their help in rewording and proofreading. The published letter was a little changed but I haven't diffed it to see exactly what. I don't think anything was deleted. The letter: December 9, 1991 Dear Sirs, This letter is in response to the recent cover article "Legal Issues for Embedded Systems Developers" by Joel B. Gilman. The article was a good overview of many legal issues faced by the software industry today but glossed over the most serious one facing programmers. This is the relatively new phenomenon (since 1981) of software patents. The article only briefly mentioned one of the many concerns raised by software and algorithm patents and did not mention any of the arguments against their existing at all. Computer software is different from physical inventions or processes and many people feel it belongs in the realm of ideas or mathematical expression which is not patentable. A single program may contain hundreds or thousands of algorithms and techniques. Though a competent programmer can invent these on the fly, some -- or possibly hundreds -- of these techniques may have already been patented or, even worse, a patent may be pending. Despite his independent discovery the programmer may be forced to pay royalties or redesign his program in a less efficient way for each "new" technique. It is not feasible to check for patents on every technique in a computer program; to attempt to do so would be a large burden on the software industry, driving software costs up sharply. This is just one of many reasons that software patents are a serious threat to the software industry. I think a future article in your magazine examining software patents would provide a substantial service to the readers. Software patents can and will have a profound affect on the individual programmer. I would suggest contacting the League for Programming Freedom. This is an organization of programmers (as well as users, educators and others) formed to protect the freedoms of programmers, primarily from software patents and "look and feel" copyrights. The address is: [League address] Sincerely, Johnathan Vail <> <>LPF Publicity: Jan CACM, Jan SunExpert, Feb Embedded Systems Prog<> The LPF patents paper was just printed in the January 1992 Communications of the ACM. (They printed the interface copyright paper in November 1990.) Member Rich Morin reports: My January I/Opener column in SunExpert Magazine is entitled "This Column May Be Illegal". It gives my own views on the software patent and L/F copyright issues. It suggests that folks contact (and preferably join) LPF. See Johnathan Vail's article above about writing to magazines for his letter in Embedded Systems Programming magazine. <> <><><><><> Mail, localgroups, signature publicity <><><><><> An amusing suggestion from a person interested in joining, who can't be identified for professional reasons: I wholeheartly agree with the column published in the January issue of CACM. We must do something now to stop lawyers from bringing the world to such a ridiculous state. By the way, has anybody ever thought of patenting the patent process? This could be a good way to stop them :-) And several frustrated readers of the 80 column last issue suggested that we use the 70 column default for the on-line version. Ok, this issue, we did. <> Local groups, please send us info about what you're doing. Putting LPF in your .sig signature is generating 2 or more info requests to us each week. This issue came out on January 44; we still plan the next in March. <> <><> League-activists mailing list is now moderated <><> League-activists is now a moderated list to reduce extraneous traffic. This mailing list league-activists@prep.ai.mit.edu and its' two sub-lists: league-activists-boston@prep.ai.mit.edu and league-activists-remote@prep.ai.mit.edu should be used only for members' requests for assistance in league projects, local or nationally, or for announcements from LPF. These lists are filtered by a moderator to: - insure this use; - minimize the number of messages; - remove items meant for the list's -request address; - forward items that should have been sent to another list. League-tactics@prep.ai.mit.edu is for discussion of LPF directions and is not moderated. To subscribe, change your eddress (email address), or be removed from either list, please use: league-activists-request@prep.ai.mit.edu or league-tactics-request@prep.ai.mit.edu We apologize for not removing people in a timely manner from League lists. Spike wasn't on the -request lists; that has been fixed. <> <> President Larsen speaks at Oct Berkeley CPSR by Adam J Richter <> I think 35 people attended Jack Larsen's speech at the Oct meeting of the Berkeley chapter of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Larsen pretty much assumed that he was talking to LPF members, so he didn't spend much time talking about why he thought software patents and UI copyrights were bad. He spent most of the two hour speech talking about more technical things like court decisions and the status of various treaties. It was quite informative for the other LPF members and me, but I don't think that we recruited many new people. Also, Larsen spoke against a few other forms of intellectual property that the LPF doesn't have a position on (e.g., mask work and normal patents). <> <><><> LPF at ARISIA sf con in Boston - Johnathan Vail <><><> In late December I found myself signed up for a computer virus panel at the ARISIA science fiction convention in Boston. One of my accomplishments in the field has been the compilation a short glossary of virus and virus related security terms that is posted occasionally on the comp.virus newsgroup. For the panel I decided to print the glossary as handouts for the panel. Since there was some space at the end I was trying to think of some related graphics I could use to jazz up the handout. When I started looking at my LPF "liberty" sticker I got the idea that I could use the space as an advertisement for the lpf. I obtained permission to do this and was pleased with the results. I hope it gave the LPF more visibility and helped to make the "liberty" drawing a more recognizable symbol for the league. For those that might be interested, the postscript and ASCII versions of the glossary have been posted to comp.virus and comp.misc. <> <><><> LPF publicity at recent conferences <><><> We had handouts and League material at the following recent conventions thanks to our hard-working volunteers:: In Dec: 1992 Sun User Group (SUG) Conference in San Jose, CA In Jan: USENIX Winter 92 Technical Conference in San Francisco, CA NeXTWORLD EXPO in San Francisco, CA 6th Annual Tech Conf on the X Window System in Boston, MA <> <><> Rms response to the editor's comments on Nov Kennedy piece <><> We are also trying to reach the public. Demonstrations will get 10 seconds of broadcast time because of their visual nature, This protest was not covered by TV. But ordinary TV news coverage is not very useful for us--they don't give any issue the time needed to get our point across. However, this protest did result in at least 2 print media articles (one in Boston Business Journal and one to come in Sun Expert.) And there may be others too. while position papers never will. Protests and position papers are not alternatives; using one doesn't interfere with using the other. We write articles as much as we see how. We get them published whenever someone will publish them. Meanwhile, when we do a protest, it gets us additional coverage. Every bit helps. Protests have another benefit: when they are easy to participate in, they help keep up the enthusiasm of the people who participate. They also provide an opportunity to inform other people at the event itself, such as by handing out position papers--which we did. <> <><> GATT Trade Treaty Threatens to Require Software Patents <><> For many years, international trade has been regulated by a treaty known as GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). Negotiations are continuing for a revision of GATT. Unlike the previous versions, the new version threatens to intrude into areas that have in the past been considered domestic policy, including copyright and patents. The current working draft would require all countries that sign the new treaty to have patents "in all fields of technology"--which must include software techniques. It would also rule out all the ideas so far proposed to protect software from patents or make the patent system bearable for software developers. The treaty covers all aspects of international trade, and currently the negotiations are deadlocked over the issue of agricultural subsidies. It's possible that this disagreement will block the treaty entirely. But perhaps there will be a compromise on agriculture; if that happens, the entire treaty will be presented to each country as a package deal. The pressure to accept it will be immense. If the US ratifies such a treaty, it would force sweeping changes in US intellectual property law, and deny the US the option of reversing them. This would take place without any consideration by the House of Representatives, and the Senate will be unable to consider these laws on their own merits as would normally happen. The US administration is responsible for negotiating the treaty and has pressed hard for these very provisions. The administration has in effect found a way to legislate by itself, depriving Congress of any real opportunity to write the laws of the land. Here are brief excerpts from the treaty that show the problems it causes: Article 27: Patentable Subject Matter 1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 below, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application... [Paragraphs 2 and 3 provide some exceptions, but none of them applies to software.] Article 28: Rights Conferred 1. A patent shall confer on its owner the following exclusive rights: (a) where the subject matter of a patent is a product, to prevent third parties not having his consent from the acts of: making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes that product; (b) where the subject matter of a patent is a process, to prevent third parties not having his consent from the act of using the process... [This rules out any form of mandatory licensing scheme that might mitigate the problem of patents.] Article 31: Other Use Without Authorisation of the Right Holder Where the law of a PARTY allows for other use3 of the subject matter of a patent without the authorisation of the right holder, including use by the government or third parties authorised by the government, the following provisions shall be respected: (a) authorisation of such use shall be considered on its individual merits; (b) such use may only be permitted if, prior to such use, the proposed user has made efforts to obtain authorisation from the right holder on reasonable commercial terms and conditions and that such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period of time. This requirement may be waived by a PARTY in the case of a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in cases of public non-commercial use. [Exceptions in accord with these provisions will be very few.] (h) the right holder shall be paid adequate remuneration in the circumstances of each case, taking into account the economic value of the authorisation; [So it will be expensive for a government to make any sort of exception.] Article 30: Exceptions to Rights Conferred PARTIES may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties. [This would seem to rule out making an exception for software in the scope of patents. Any exception for a program that would be used widely would enable the patent holder to claim to have "lost" signifigantly.] Article 33: Term of Protection The term of protection available shall not end before the expiration of a period of twenty years counted from the filing date. [This requires an increase in the term of a US patent in many cases. It also rules out the idea of making patents for software last for a shorter term commensurate with the rate of progress.] <> <><><><><> Final results of the direct mailing <><><><><> $792.00 cost - postage for 4000 letters at 19.8 cents each. $859.50 income as follows: $450 mem + mugs - 6 $126 mem regular - 3 $250 mem + donation - 1 $ 10.50 mem student - 1 $ 10.00 donation - 1 $ 3.00 info requests - 3 at $1 each $ 70 net gain plus eleven members <> <><><> LPF Boutique Materials Available from the League <><><> Buttons We have reprinted the famous ``fanged apple'' buttons. These buttons show the symbol of Apple computer with an alien snake's body and face. You can buy buttons by mail from the League, for $2 each, in quantities of at least three. We give out buttons at events, but ask for a donation. Stickers We also have stickers showing Liberty Empowering the Programmer, with the League's name and address. You can order stickers by mail from the League at the price of $5 for 10 stickers; for larger orders, phone us to discuss a price. We hand them out free when it is convenient, such as at our events, but since mailing packages to individuals costs money, we want to make it an opportunity to raise funds. Post stickers at eye level and separated from other posted articles, to make them easy to see. The stickers are not made to survive rain. Liberty Postcards We also have postcards showing Liberty Empowering the Programmer, with the League's name and address. Same terms as the stickers. Large Liberty Posters We have a few posters with the same image that is on the stickers, approximately 2.5 ft by 1.5 ft. We used such posters to make signs for the protest rally. If you need some, talk with the League and we'll work out a deal. Coffee Mugs Our coffee mugs have the Fanged Apple design in full color on one side and ``League for Programming Freedom'' on the other. They hold twelve ounces and are microwave safe. Not available until Feb. 92. You can order a mug for $10, nonmembers $12.. They will not be ready until Feb 1992 [and have just arrived]. T-Shirts Michael Ernst has produced t-shirts with Liberty and ``League for Programming Freedom'' on the front and ``Innovate, Don't Litigate'' on the back. (The back slogan will change from time to time.) You can order shirts by mail from the League for $12 (which includes $2 for mailing). Available colors are yellow, blue and peach; if you specify a color, we will assume you would rather have the other color than no shirt. If you want a chosen color or nothing, say so explicitly. Please specify the shirt size! (M, L or XL.) Position Papers and Memberships We will send anyone a copy of the League position papers. If you want other copies to hand out at an event, we'll send you as many as you need. Please discuss your plans with us. One-year memberships are $42 for professionals, $10.50 for students, and $21 for others. The dues are $100 for an institution with up to three employees, $250 for an institution with four to nine employees, and $500 for an institution with ten or more employees. For $5000, an institution can be a sponsor rather than a member. We have 10 inst. members, now. League Papers Online You can retrieve LPF written materials by anonymous ftp from prep.ai.mit.edu in the directory /pub/lpf. These include the position papers, membership form, handouts, friends of the court briefs, and articles about the LPF's issues of concern. League Video Cassettes We have video tapes of some of Richard Stallman's speeches for the LPF. If you'd like to give LPF speeches, we can send you copies of these tapes to give you an example to learn from. If you'd like copies for another purpose, we can send them for $20 each. <><><> <><><> End of Jan 1992 Programming Freedom <><><> We are sending this only to members who don't have a valid or updated email address. If you have an eddress and want us to send this by email, please send us an update at league@prep.ai.mit.edu . League for Programming Freedom 1 Kendall Square #143 P.O.Box 9171 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 FIRST CLASS MAIL