The more stuff like this happens, the harder it will be to pass this stuff.

The more stuff like this happens, the harder it will be to pass this stuff.

I have a long list (it exists only in my head unfortunately) of various ethnographic projects I would like to conduct. I might start the real list soon but in the meantime, I will just through the half-baked ideas here and perhaps it will inspire others to take it on. I am currently reading a fantastic book, The Case Against Perfection, and am on a section on hyperparenting and well, while I think at a common sense level we know what psychological havoc such controlled parenting can cause, I think an ethnography of some of the practices and institutions of hyperparenting would, nonetheless, make for a fascinating read. If anyone knows of anything that even resembles this, do drop me a line. Update: Not exactly an ethnography but certainly fun to read.

I have a long list (it exists only in my head unfortunately) of various ethnographic projects I would like to conduct. I might start the real list soon but in the meantime, I will just through the half-baked ideas here and perhaps it will inspire others to take it on. I am currently reading a fantastic book, The Case Against Perfection, and am on a section on hyperparenting and well, while I think at a common sense level we know what psychological havoc such controlled parenting can cause, I think an ethnography of some of the practices and institutions of hyperparenting would, nonetheless, make for a fascinating read. If anyone knows of anything that even resembles this, do drop me a line. Update: Not exactly an ethnography but certainly fun to read.

I recently got to spend some time hanging with part of the FLOSS manual crew and they basically are as busy as ever holding sprints across the US and Europe to write documentation and manuals for Free Software. They are holding a mini sprint in Cambridge, MA and along with the FSF will be writing a manual on the command line in about two days. If the idea of writing documentation makes you feel warm and happy inside, then this is the even for you. They are always looking for volunteers and I assure you, the experience will be well worth your time, effort, and participation.

I recently got to spend some time hanging with part of the FLOSS manual crew and they basically are as busy as ever holding sprints across the US and Europe to write documentation and manuals for Free Software. They are holding a mini sprint in Cambridge, MA and along with the FSF will be writing a manual on the command line in about two days. If the idea of writing documentation makes you feel warm and happy inside, then this is the even for you. They are always looking for volunteers and I assure you, the experience will be well worth your time, effort, and participation.

Expectations: A little over a week ago I participated in a camp/event/conference/ that threw together 12 different networked based-groups/phenomenon/organizations. They got to do what many often can t do: spend some time working face-to-face as well as thinking about about questions of un(organizational) growth/ungrowth. Some of us spent some time learning about the nature of networked coordinations and organizations from these groups. There is a lot I could write about but, in part because I was in Amsterdam for a week, I am now playing serious catch up, but there are a few things that really struck me both of which relate to expectations, which I thought worth jotting down. Generally present were the following types of groups: open source projects (such as Blender), tech-oriented activist projects (Dyne), non-tech oriented projects (such as Free Dimensional), artistic-tech projects (such as GOTO10), artistic projects (Upgrade), academic-activist (Edu Factory) and others which are harder to classify (such as Gender Changes, and FLOSS Manuals). One thing that came out during the plenary sessions, which is when we got together as a large group to debate and discuss, is that technically oriented open source projects are at times singled out for not being inclusive. That is, people pointed out that most projects expect you to contribute technically in order to participate (and don t necessarily offer people the training/capacity so you can participate). I have heard a version of this many many and many times before and find it to be a curious (and generally unproductive) accusation, though I understand why the confusions arises. I say confusion because most of these projects are not overtly set up to be inclusive/technically pedagogical, and this is perhaps the key point they don t purport to be though many folks think this is part of their overall message/mission. Because these free software projects are open source, this, for some, somehow automatically translates into the political projects of inclusivity (that is, training folks so that they can become part of this world). And yet some other projects, such as Edu Factory and GoTo10, which are run as tight-knit of collectives, are rarely accused of not being inclusive. Why should this be? I raise this mostly because I find it interesting, pointing to the way certain terms or phrases (Freedom, Openness) combined with the visibility of FLOSS projects, automatically generate other expectations and meanings even if they don t actually exist. I also raise it because I think it is an unfair expectation to have of these communities only in so far as most of them are full of folks busy hacking up technology and this in and of itself, as I have written about before is worthwhile politically. And yet If one wants to make them more inclusive, then one can go ahead and bring into being such a project for most of them are quite open to various initiatives to enlarge the scope of participation. These projects can be internal to projects or external to them. That is, self-initiative goes a long way in this world, and has helped changed the terrain of participation and inclusivity and I am sure will continue to do so. Which brings me to my second point about expectations. Many people complain that open source is not easy to use. While this was entirely, 1000% true prior to 1998, every passing day makes this statement harder to stand by. I imagine in another 10 years, there will be many many programs that are as usable for the novice user as proprietary software. They had to play serious catch-up and I think have done a decent job. In some regards, all that was and is needed is time because time has already shown that usability has improved leaps and bounds. And yet there is still something odd about the accusations, which my friend tulpje but in the following way One would never accuse the Zapatistas for not having their military might/shit together like the US army, so why accuse open source for not being the mightiest software our there?) While I actually think that free software has already and will continue to give proprietary firms a run for their money in a way that a rag-tag guerrilla army can t do with a national army, it is nonetheless important to couch one s responses and accusations in terms of the constraints and realities of these projects. That said, I still think such expectations reflect important hopes and desires. They show us just how profoundly free software/open source has, simply by virtue of its existence, inspired many to follow suite politically, turning to FLOSS as a beacon of possibility.

Expectations: A little over a week ago I participated in a camp/event/conference/ that threw together 12 different networked based-groups/phenomenon/organizations. They got to do what many often can t do: spend some time working face-to-face as well as thinking about about questions of un(organizational) growth/ungrowth. Some of us spent some time learning about the nature of networked coordinations and organizations from these groups. There is a lot I could write about but, in part because I was in Amsterdam for a week, I am now playing serious catch up, but there are a few things that really struck me both of which relate to expectations, which I thought worth jotting down. Generally present were the following types of groups: open source projects (such as Blender), tech-oriented activist projects (Dyne), non-tech oriented projects (such as Free Dimensional), artistic-tech projects (such as GOTO10), artistic projects (Upgrade), academic-activist (Edu Factory) and others which are harder to classify (such as Gender Changes, and FLOSS Manuals). One thing that came out during the plenary sessions, which is when we got together as a large group to debate and discuss, is that technically oriented open source projects are at times singled out for not being inclusive. That is, people pointed out that most projects expect you to contribute technically in order to participate (and don t necessarily offer people the training/capacity so you can participate). I have heard a version of this many many and many times before and find it to be a curious (and generally unproductive) accusation, though I understand why the confusions arises. I say confusion because most of these projects are not overtly set up to be inclusive/technically pedagogical, and this is perhaps the key point they don t purport to be though many folks think this is part of their overall message/mission. Because these free software projects are open source, this, for some, somehow automatically translates into the political projects of inclusivity (that is, training folks so that they can become part of this world). And yet some other projects, such as Edu Factory and GoTo10, which are run as tight-knit of collectives, are rarely accused of not being inclusive. Why should this be? I raise this mostly because I find it interesting, pointing to the way certain terms or phrases (Freedom, Openness) combined with the visibility of FLOSS projects, automatically generate other expectations and meanings even if they don t actually exist. I also raise it because I think it is an unfair expectation to have of these communities only in so far as most of them are full of folks busy hacking up technology and this in and of itself, as I have written about before is worthwhile politically. And yet If one wants to make them more inclusive, then one can go ahead and bring into being such a project for most of them are quite open to various initiatives to enlarge the scope of participation. These projects can be internal to projects or external to them. That is, self-initiative goes a long way in this world, and has helped changed the terrain of participation and inclusivity and I am sure will continue to do so. Which brings me to my second point about expectations. Many people complain that open source is not easy to use. While this was entirely, 1000% true prior to 1998, every passing day makes this statement harder to stand by. I imagine in another 10 years, there will be many many programs that are as usable for the novice user as proprietary software. They had to play serious catch-up and I think have done a decent job. In some regards, all that was and is needed is time because time has already shown that usability has improved leaps and bounds. And yet there is still something odd about the accusations, which my friend tulpje but in the following way One would never accuse the Zapatistas for not having their military might/shit together like the US army, so why accuse open source for not being the mightiest software our there?) While I actually think that free software has already and will continue to give proprietary firms a run for their money in a way that a rag-tag guerrilla army can t do with a national army, it is nonetheless important to couch one s responses and accusations in terms of the constraints and realities of these projects. That said, I still think such expectations reflect important hopes and desires. They show us just how profoundly free software/open source has, simply by virtue of its existence, inspired many to follow suite politically, turning to FLOSS as a beacon of possibility.

Luke Peterson from UC Davis came to visit me in Reno and we spent the last weekend hacking on the Python Dynamics package that uses SymPy to calculate equations of motion for basically any rigid body system.

On Friday we did some preliminary work, mostly on the paper, Luke showed me his rolling torus demo that he did with the proprietary autolev package. We set ourselves a goal to get this implemented in SymPy by the time Luke leaves and then we went to the Atlantis casino together with my boss Pavel and other guys from the Desert Research Institute and I had my favourite meal here, a big burger, fries and a beer.

On Saturday we started to code and had couple lines of the autolev torus script working. Then we went on the bike ride from Reno to California. I took some pictures with Luke's iphone:


Those mountains are in California and we went roughly to the snow line level and back:

This is Nevada side:


That was fun. Then we worked hard and by the evening we had a dot product and a cross product working, so we went to an Irish pub to have couple beers and I had my burger as usual.

On Sunday we spent the whole day and evening coding and we got the equations of motion working. On Monday we worked very hard again:



and fixed some remaining nasty bugs. I taught Luke to use git, so our code is at: http://github.com/hazelnusse/pydy, for the time being we call it pydy and after we polish everything, we'll probably put it into sympy/physics/pydy.py. If you run rollingtorus.py, you get this plot of the trajectory of the torus in a plane:

It's basically if you throw a coin on the table, e.g. this model takes into account moments of inertia, yaw (heading), lean, spin and the x-y motion in the plane. Depending on the initial conditions, you can get many different trajectories, e.g for example:

or:


This is very exciting, as the code is very short, and most of the things that Luke needs are needed for all the other applications of sympy, e.g. a good printing of equations and vectors (both in the terminal and in latex), C code generation, fast handling of expressions, nice ipython terminal for experimentation, plotting, etc.

Together with the atomic physics package that we started to develop with Brian sympy will soon be able to cover some basic areas of physics. Other areas are general relativity (there is some preliminary code in examples/advanced/relativity.py) and quantum field theory and Feynman diagrams - for that we need someone enthusiastic that needs this for his/her research --- if you are interested, drop me an email, you can come to Reno (or work remotely) and we can get it done.

My vision is that sympy should be able to handle all areas of physics, e.g. it needs good assumptions (if you want to help out, please help us test Fabian's patches here), then faster core, we have a pretty good optional Cython core here, so we'll be merging it after the new assumptions are in place. Then sympy should have basic modules for most areas in physics so that one can get started really quickly. From our experience so far in sympy/physics, those modules will not be big, as most of the functionality is not module specific.

I live in the USA. Our government issues many grants to scientists for research via the National Institute of Health. I recently found out about the NIH's recent requirement that publicly-funded research must be published freely online within 12 months. As you can imagine, i think this is a remarkably Good Thing (though 12 months seems a little bit long for fast-moving fields). Apparently, John Conyers and several co-sponsors have introduced HR 801, which appears intended to overturn this remarkable policy, primarily for the benefit of the companies that publish scientific journals. This bill is a shame, and i had hoped for better from Rep. Conyers, who otherwise has a remarkably positive record as a legislator advocating for government transparency and the public good. Sadly, his stance on so-called "Intellectual Property" seems characterized by heavy-handed legislation designed to benefit the parties already heavily favored by the current imbalanced copyright situation. If you live in the US (and especially if you live in Conyers' district in Michigan), please send him e-mail or get in touch by phone and tell him to drop the bill. You might also check the list of cosponsors to see if one of them is more local to you. If you want to read more, Lawrence Lessig has written about this issue, addressing Congressman Conyers directly in the Huffington Post. Curiously, Rep. Conyers' web site contains no mention of HR 801.Tags: policy

From the FFII:

EPO seeks to validate software patents without the European Parliament

Benjamin Henrion, President of the association, says: "The current plan of the patent lobby is very clear: avoid a new software patent directive, validate the EPO practice via a central patent court, and guide the hand of the courts via a decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. They want to avoid the intervention of the European Parliament in substantive patent law."

In other words, seeing as the elected representatives have blocked a change in the law, the unelected quango will simply seek a change in the rules to make it unnecessary to change the law and therefore avoid asking the elected representatives at all.

This is crazy, dangerous and downright sinister.

"Considering that the EPO is an institution acting as judge and party, where the attributions and procedures have to be revised. [...] Demand the revision of rules of function of the EPO in order to guarantee that this institution can publicly justify the accountability in the exercise of its functions [...]."

Judge, jury and executioner more like.

Interested parties have up to the last day of April to send their comments to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

Information for third parties wishing to file written statements

Communication from the Enlarged Board of Appeal concerning case G 3/08

(my comments added in bold)

In accordance with Article 112(1)(b) EPC, the President of the European Patent Office has referred the following points of law concerning the limits of patentability of programs for computers within the meaning of Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The case is pending under ref. No. G 3/08.

The questions referred are:

1. Can a computer program only be excluded as a computer program as such if it is explicity claimed as a computer program?

No, any computer program is excluded no matter how it is claimed because a computer program is not patentable. The patent claim must contain material other than a computer program and the computer program itself cannot be claimed as part of any patent claim nor can any computer program ever be deemed to have infringed any patent claim even if that claim was previously based entirely in hardware.

2.(a) Can a claim in the area of computer programs avoid exclusion under Art. 52(2)(c) and (3) merely by explicity mentioning the use of a computer or a computer-readable data storage medium?

No patent claim can be made against any method expressed as a computer program. It is the software that matters, not the paraphernalia of computers. Therefore, whether a computer or computer-readable data storage media are mentioned, any software is automatically excluded from patentability. If the claim makes no sense without that software, then the claim is excluded.

(b) If question 2(a) is answered in the negative, is a further technical effect necessary to avoid exclusion, said effect going beyond those effects inherent in the use of a computer or data storage medium to respectively execute or store a computer program?

Any effect is excluded from patentability if that effect is or can be executed by software. If the effect becomes possible via software at some point in the future, the software cannot be deemed to have infringed the patent claim because software is not patentable.

3.(a) Must a claimed feature cause a technical effect on a physical entity in the real world in order to contribute to the technical character of the claim?

Effects on the "real world" are irrelevant - if the effect is or can be performed in software, the effect is excluded and any software implementing that effect cannot be deemed to have infringed the patent claim. The real world still includes the electrons that implement the effect of software but software is not patentable.

(b) If question 3(a) is answered in the positive, is it sufficient that the physical entity be an unspecified computer?

No, the effect is not the issue, the method is the issue.

(c) If question 3(a) is answered in the negative, can features contribute to the technical character of the claim if the only effects to which they contribute are independent of any particular hardware that may be used?

Portability infers software and software is not patentable. A claim must be excluded if it is wholly or partially implemented as software or can be wholly implemented as software and no software implementation can be deemed to have infringed the patent claim either in whole or in part now or in the future because software is not patentable.

4.(a) Does the activity of programming a computer necessarily involve technical considerations?

No. Programming is a form of speech, it uses languages and different languages have different requirements for technical expertise. Some languages require little or no technical expertise to generate an effect within a computer by means of software.

(b) If question 4(a) is answered in the positive, do all features resulting from programming thus contribute to the technical character of a claim?

No software programming can have any technical character for patentability because software is not patentable.

(c) If question 4(a) is answered in the negative, can features resulting from programming contribute to the technical character of a claim only when they contribute to a further technical effect when the program is executed?

No, if the features result from programming then the software to effect those features is not patentable and the feature itself is not patentable. No effect of a computer program can be wholly or partially patentable.

The text of the referral in the English language is available under Referrals pending before the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal considering the referral will be composed as follows:

* P. Messerli (CH) (Chairman)
* M. Vogel (DE)
* D. Rees (GB)
* M. Dorn (DK)
* K. H rmand (EE)
* A. Klein (FR)
* J.-P. Seitz (FR)

It is expected that third parties will wish to use the opportunity to file written statements in accordance with Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (OJ EPO 2007, 303 ff). To ensure that any such statements can be given due consideration they should be filed together with any new cited documents by the end of April 2009 at the Registry of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, quoting case number G 3/08. An additional filing of the statement and documents in electronic form would be appreciated (Dg3registry_eba@epo.org ).

---

Feel free to add your own answers to the questions as comments.

I am not aware of any Linux Users Group (LUG) being active in informing it s members of how the policies of the various political parties compare with regard to free software and the other issues that are of interest to most members. I believe that this is a grave mistake. Shortly before an election there are many social groups that send lists of questions to all the parties. They ask about the policies the parties have in regard to the issues that they care about, and helpfully mention the number of members that will receive the response. This of course doesn t mean that every member of the group in question will cast their vote in the same way, merely that they will take note of the answers. The committee members of the parties in question will then decide how to answer the questions and whether policy should be tweaked to allow answers that the lobby groups will like. So this process not only helps members of a group make informed voting decisions related to issues that they care about, but it also helps political parties choose policies that are least offensive to the group in question. Here is a draft of a list of questions that I think should be asked of all political parties on behalf of Linux users:

1. It is important for all citizens to access all government data without being forced to buy new software or hardware, open standards allow everyone to access the data with free software. Do you support the use of open standards for data on government web sites and other forms of electronic communication between government agencies and citizens?


2. For long term archival of records it is important that file formats remain readable. The only effective way of doing this is to use open file formats that are implemented in free software. Do you support mandating that all data submitted to government agencies (by citizens or corporations) be in open file formats wherever possible?


3. In these difficult economic times there is a great interest in keeping jobs in the country instead of sending money overseas. To what extent do you support the use of free software that is installed and managed by locals (keeping the money in the economy) instead of importing software at great taxpayer expense?


4. Commercial software has a limited support period, after that time has elapsed there is no further support and systems become increasingly unreliable. Do you support mandating that all systems relating to the emergency services run on free software to allow quality long-term support by local citizens?


5. There has been a lot of concern recently about the spread of child-porn. The best available evidence shows that insecure home PCs that run Trojan Horse programs are a key part of distributing it and other illegal material. Do you support the introduction of government programs to train parents in installing one of the more secure free operating systems on their home PC to protect their children?

This is just a rough draft. Obviously there needs to be local differences (EG don t use point 3 in the US because MS brings money into the US economy). Does anyone have any suggestions for other questions?