[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive]
 
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Skåne Sjælland Linux User Group - http://www.sslug.dk Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Forum   Calendar   Search
MhonArc Date: [Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next]   Thread: [Date Prev] [Thread Index] [Date Next]   MhonArc
 

Re: [ITPOLITIK] Oplæg til definition af enåben standard fra DNF



On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 22:33:06 +0100
Flemming Bjerke <sslug@sslug> wrote:

>> 1. Det er tvivlsomt at hævde at computerinformatonsbehandling ikke er
>> information.

> 1. Det er tvivlsomt at hævde at computerinformatonsbehandling ikke er
> teknik.

Aha. Er du siker på at du ikke anser at teknik _er_ information?

En teknisk symbole indeholder information, ik? Eller er symbolen i sig
information? Eller er den tekniske represenationen af information
teknik? Eller skiljer sig den tekniske representationen fra den
symboliske? Er det en teknisk forskel?

Jag fand den her beskrivelsen ganske god:
A computer program does not have any physical interaction with a
computer or network. The physical processes in a computer are influenced
by the data carriers, peripheral input signals, etc. but the program and
the data are information, not physical entities and have no physical
interaction with anything, just like traffic information from a radio
station has no physical interaction with cars on the road, and yet it
may affect their flow. Therefore a computer program never produces
a "technical effect beyond the normal physical interaction between a
program and the computer ...". All technical effects in a computer
are due to its own design or to hardware failures, not to its software.
If any information you give to a computer ever produces technical
effects beyond the normal ones, then it is a magic spell, not a program.

Teknisk magi?

> Nej. Dels er det forkert at informationsbehandling i en computer ikke
> er teknik.

Så er det ikke tvivelsomt, det er helt bestemt? Er det for at EDB er
"teknisk" du vil at det _ikke_ skal patenteres? Mange skulle sige at det
er det staerkese argumentet _for_ patentering af software - det hved vel
alle at allt hvad en computer laver er "teknisk". Det står og i
direktivet på siden 7.

> Dels vinder argumentet ikke gehør blandt Folketingets
> flertal pga. dets filosofiske karakter.

Men det vann ju gehör i CULT og i ITRE? Hvorfor skulle det ikke vinde
gehör i folketinget? Det er flere MEPs som ha forstått at direktvet må
sige:

1 Data Processing (regardles of whether performed by the human mind
with pencil and paper or by computer) is not a Field of Technology in
the sense of Patent Law.

2. Member States shall ensure that patent claims are not directed to the
mere operation of generic data processing equipment (i.e. computer with
devices for data storage and for exchanging data with humans and
computers) but must comprise the operation of equipment which serves to
control forces of nature in an inventive way.

for at klare op situationen.

Det förste er ikke så komliceret, og det andre er bekant siden 1963. Jag
kan ikke se nogre paedagogiske problemer. Men det gör du?

> > Det her forstår jag ikke heller, skal staten gå med i W3C?
> 
> Den mulighed havde jeg ikke tænkt på. Jeg mente blot at w3c var et
> eksempel på at det i en vis udstrækning er muligt at manøvrere uden om
> patenter.

En annen vej er at manövrere patenter uden om standarder på EDB.

> Min pointe er også at hvis det skal opfattes som et problem at 
> softwarepatenter gør det vanskeligt/umuligt at bevare fri og åbne 
> standarder, må målsætningen "brug fri og åbne standarder" godtages. Så
> lad os argumentere for fri og åbne standarder.

Så patenter overallt, men ikke på de standarder som staten anvender ner
staten kommunikerer med sine borgere? Staten blir så et eget
software house som bruger obne standarder? En glimrende idé! 

//Erik


 
Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Index   Calendar   Search

 
 
Questions about the web-pages to <www_admin>. Last modified 2005-08-10, 20:20 CEST [an error occurred while processing this directive]
This page is maintained by [an error occurred while processing this directive]MHonArc [an error occurred while processing this directive] # [an error occurred while processing this directive] *