[sclug] Richard Stallman in The Guardian

[Antony Bartlett]

> > Not that the software issues aren't important, and yet, however
ridiculous
> > the idea that source code can be subject to patents might seem to many
> > programmers, myself included, and no matter how much more throughly
> > ridiculous business processes such as Amazon's patented one-click
> > purchasing might seem:... I doubt that it is putting lives at risk.

> I can foresee issues where the openness of software is a concern - for
> example, the Chinook helicopter crash in 1994 has been blamed on the
> software by some <http://www.cw360.com/Article22613.htm>. Given how
> pervasive embedded controllers are these days, I can foresee similar
> accusations relating to medical equipment and engine management units in
> automobiles.

Patents are "open" in the sense of being available for public
scrutiny and peer-review.  That's not the reason why they're "open" - it's
more to do with placing limits on the time that an inventor can exploit
her or his invention, and ensuring that the inventors secrets don't die
with them, but it seems to me that in theory at least, that particular
purpose and public interest should be well served by the system.
(though in practice, I expect the wording of patents tends to be designed to
give as little away as possible and generally make life difficult for anyone
trying to copy the invention, and consequently difficult to review).

So I still don't see lives being put at risk by software patents, but using
any other form of closed software in safety-critical-systems sounds
dangerous, yes.  I didn't realize that this particular argument in favor
of FOSS existed, but have to say I find it a compelling one.

    Best regards,

        Antony.