Slashdot Mirror

It is important to note that open source developers, whether commercial or non-commercial, will not need a patent license for the development of implementations of these protocols or for the non-commercial distribution of these implementations, according to Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Open Source Developers.

Remember folks that this is Microsofts own description and that the GPL experts have said that Microsoft's OSP (Open Specification Promise) is incompatible with Open Source licenses. The SFLC also say that it would even comply with BSD-style licenses.

And please -- this is a legal matter to do with the wording of the Microsoft pledge, so lets not hear slashdot legal advice -- lets link to actual legal opinion if anyone wants to debate this.

Oh and the Sun license pledge for ODF is compatible with GPL according to the people who helped design GPL

FSF and gpl-violations.org are co-operating closely. gpl-violations and FSF have handled some cases regarding busybox before and have handled them successfully (i.e., out-of-court settlements have been achieved).

The ISO have a special fast-track process which means 9 months to review 6000+ pages and 1 month to review 4000+ pages. The end result of this process is a poor quality text with many non-disclosed areas. When the text is released is we will have to reverse-engineer it in order to find out how to use it.

OOXML has patents and is licensed under Microsofts OSP which means that it's incompatible with open source licensing. The ISO allow patents and small fees per-unit (RAND) so this means that Microsoft could restrict some fundamental freedoms associated with open source and destroy any open source version.

By contrast ODF is compatible with Open Source licensing

So ISO are untrusted now, due to approving a standard that is largely undefined, and instead people are moving to the W3C and OASIS.

More specifically it wasn't just the ISO, it's also the IEC and the ITTF that are now untrusted because of OOXML.

The ISO have a special fast-track process which means 9 months to review 6000+ pages and 1 month to review 4000+ pages. The end result of this process is a poor quality text with many non-disclosed areas. When the text is released is we will have to reverse-engineer it in order to find out how to use it.

OOXML has patents and is licensed under Microsofts OSP which means that it's incompatible with open source licensing. The ISO allow patents and small fees per-unit (RAND) so this means that Microsoft could restrict some fundamental freedoms associated with open source and destroy any open source version.

By contrast ODF is compatible with Open Source licensing

So ISO are untrusted now, due to approving a standard that is largely undefined, and instead people are moving to the W3C and OASIS.

More specifically it wasn't just the ISO, it's also the IEC and the ITTF that are now untrusted because of OOXML.

As shown by the ISO approval of OOXML the ISO allow proprietary non-open-source patent-encumbered RAND licenses

ODF is compatible with the GPL and open source licences.

Instead developers do rely on reverse engineering laws (which have some provisions for patents) as they always have in the past for developing .doc filters.

If developers choose to ignore both the SFLC opinion of those who wrote the GPL and if they choose to ignore reverse engineering procedures and write ooxml filters anyway this does not make it lawful or disprove my point.

OOXML is against Open Source from a legal standpoint, an existing OSS software standpoint (doesn't build upon web standards like SVG but instead proposes things like VML), and against the philosophy of open development (developed at Ecma where even people like Goldberg could only ask for more information from Microsoft rather than actually helping fix or design the format)

That was simply a case of an agent of the primary developer suing a company that distributes the code in object form without providing the source. That is not unlike Microsoft suing you if your redistribute a piece of redistributable code but did not follow the license.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the FSF, who is powerless to enforce the GPL on projects where they do not own the copyright, and the Copyright holder has not requested their help.

Further, no GPL copyright holder has been known to sue unless the other party is unwilling to comply or cease distribution. Yes, one can almost invariably get a GPL lawsuit dropped just by ceasing the distribution of the relevant code. The GPL's culture is very relaxed compared to many other licenses where once a lawsuit has started only money or cross-licensing agreements can terminate it early. I'll admit that much of this is true for other Free Software or Open Source licenses too, but it does show that your concern may be just a bit overblown. That said, if you prefer other licenses, there is little reason not to use them, especially if they remain GPL compatible.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), and other key "patent busters" need to write open letters in support of this action. We need visibility here.

Ok it wasn't FSF but a simular organization linked from the FSF site.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/nov/20/busybox/

You could have also googled it yourself. This is slashdot not an accedemic paper. My views are my own, and often I am going off of memory, So I messed up FSF from an other organization. I am not going to spend all day doing research for a slashdot post.

But my point stands that the GPL is to strict for my personal liking and I would feel volnerable legally if I were to develop under the GPL.

Specifically, the ODF page says:

The Sun OpenDocument Patent Statement applies to any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications, or of any subsequent version of the format thereof only if Sun Microsystems participates in development of the subsequent standard version

Notice the language: Any implementation under the current version. Future versions only if Sun is involved in making the new version of the standard.

With regard to implementations, IBM defines their "covered implementation" as:

"Covered Implementations" are those specific portions of a product (hardware, software, services or combinations thereof) that implement and comply with a Covered Specification and are included in a fully compliant implementation of that Covered Specification. Reference to IBM (or you) includes entities controlled by, controlling, and under common control with IBM (or you), based on majority control.

Which is referring to Sun participating in subsequent versions of the standard, not participating in creating the implementation of the current standard. This is a very different thing.

and the ODF Patent pledge reads:

Sun irrevocably covenants that, subject solely to the reciprocity requirement described below, it will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 Specification, or of any subsequent version thereof ("OpenDocument Implementation") in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation

So as far as I can tell, IBM and Sun have explicitly waived their ability to sue any implementation of the current ODF standard for patent infringement.

Unfortuantely I can't find a clear definition of "Covered Implementation" on the applicable Microsoft page, but the objections to it have been fairly well documented (ie. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html).

From the Software Freedom Law Center's legal guide:

Merely owning a few patents will not provide an effective defensive counterweight to a hostile competitor that holds hundreds or thousands of patents. It will also be entirely ineffective against so-called patent trolls. Patent trolls are companies that acquire, sue on and license patents but do not produce any products that might infringe others' patents.

Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway, 17th floor
New York, NY 10023

They're a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, so if you're in the US, your contribution will be tax-deductible.

It's expensive to fight lawsuits. Vote with your wallet!

Sorry but this is about the second time the Linux foundation issues a terrible statement like that, I still got a grudge after the "Linux users must respect Microsoft even though Microsoft certainly doesn't respect Linux users" one.

What's worse is that this is a smoke screen, since such Linux foundation statement will probably be echoed much more than SFLC's recent statement about the MS' (bogus) patent promise .

Since "you" is ambiguous referring to an AC, I will post my $.02 worth of searching.

FCC Rules on FOSS and Software-Defined Radio
Cognitive Radio Technologies and Software Defined Radios

As far as I can gather the main problem is that part of the licensing requirements is that "security measures" that need to be in place to prevent use of the device outside the specifications for which it is licensed.
With the boundary between driver software on the computer vs. firmware on the device shifting ever more away from the device, it becomes harder to implement these security measures.

The SFLC's Legal Issues Primer for Open Source and Free Software Projects covers this. You probably want to give it a read.

Still, if it's really important, ask a lawyer, don't ask Slashdot.

invest in *.

The FSF isn't a money making machine.. so there isn't much chance of that.

The SFLC on the other hand...

This is the type of thing the Software Freedom Law Center exists to help with. Visit our site at http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ or email help@softwarefreedom.org to ask for advice.

I don't know what "generic software" is but there's nothing stopping you from paying developers to hack on free software to meet your needs now. What requires "draconian" enforcement isn't just about payment for software licenses, it's about keeping users from doing things neighbors and friends do with each other—sharing. There's no draconian enforcement of free software licenses. Just 2 years ago at the Plone Conference, Eben Moglen, lawyer and longtime GPL enforcer, said much of his GPL enforcement work was done quietly and that Stallman given him a directive of pursuing compliance, "I have a rule. You must never let a request for damages interfere with a settlement for compliance." (movie in various formats, transcript).

I don't see free software copyright compliance threatening rape (as Stallman says the lobbyists for proprietary software development firms has done in countries outside the US), putting language in free licenses to try and get physical access to your computer to do license enforcement (which is how the BFA justifies raids on their client's customers), or stopping commercial redistribution of the software. Proprietary software developers and their agents do these things.

By defining a user's freedom in terms of "programmer interest" ("mainstream" essentially means what this privileged class says it means) you're placing one set of people's priorities above another. The free software movement rejects this because it is interested in equality amongst all computer users—we should all have the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify software and our computers at any time for any reason we deem necessary. Note that they discuss freedom (permission), not skill. What you're willing to spend time learning is a restriction you place upon yourself, a restriction of skill, not freedom, and that ability is no justification for another user's freedom.

I also don't know what you mean when you say that Stallman "wants copyright to be optimal". Two years ago at the FSF member meeting (which anyone can attend, by the way, one need not be an FSF member) I asked Stallman to describe how he would organize copyright and he gave an explanation consistent with what he had said before about granting a blanket non-commercial verbatim copying and distribution permission and then an increasing set of restrictions depending on the type of work (functional works being one such type). The reason everyone should be free to share and modify functional works comes right from his perspective on free software.

Despite having never used Postfix or Dovecot before, in about five minutes of searching, I discovered http://code.softwarefreedom.org/projects/backports/browser/external/standalone/dovecot/current/doc/wiki/LDA.Postfix.txt which led me to http://www.postfix.org/master.5.html where it states a field of "-" requests that the built-in default value be used.. So now not only does God know what it means, so do I and now you.

If you think that's bad, try configuring sendmail one day. Mail servers are not exactly known for their user-friendly GUI tools, and I think it's a stretch to extrapolate from that about the state of Linux configuration in general. Using Active Directory compatibility as a benchmark is pretty unfair too, given how hard Microsoft tries to make that difficult for everyone else.

Yeah, some authors actually mean what they say. SFLC is going to get a christmas present from me! You should donate too! God I love those guys!

SFLC is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, and donations made to it are fully tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/donate/

SFLC is the Software Freedom Law Center. You can think of it as the militant arm of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), though one does not directly control the other. Its founder and main figure is Prof. Eben Moglen, formerly general counsel and board member of the FSF.

Um, you haven't seen the latest GPL lawsuit have you? The one against Monsoon Multimedia, they had failed to distribute source with their modified BusyBox code, and the Software Freedom Law Centre was demanding that Monsoon hand over ALL money they got by selling the device. Sounds like a money grab to me.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/sep/20/busybox/complaint.pdf

Well... the answer is yes and no. It depends on which version of the BSD license... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses Simply put, there are a few different BSD or BSD style licenses (all refered to as BSD licenses). There is a deeper explanation of what you must do to encorporate BSD code into a GPL project http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html

The SLFC's document about originality requirements spends nearly all of its time citing USA court decisions, whereas any action would be brought in Germany, not the USA. Yes, the very last section of the document (section 7) handwaves away this critical issue, by saying that we can use American copyright law as a guideline as to whether requirements of E.C. copyright law are met.

IANAL, but isn't this a pretty bad idea?

I wouldn't go as far as calling it "glossed over," but there is sure as hell a lot of talk about the issue being "resolved" without waiting for Theo and Reyk to chime in.

The real meat of the whole thing is in this analysis, where the SFLC argues in some detail that the changes made by the Linux Wireless folks do qualify for a derived work of their authorship. Do Theo and Reyk agree with this? We don't know. The licensing concession might be enough to get them to settle, independently of the authorship dispute, or then again it might not.

Certainly calling this "resolved" is very, very premature. You don't get to call this "resolved" until the other guy agrees not to sue.

You can distribute BSD code inside of a GPL project. When the SFLC published the results of its efforts in the wireless driver dispute, they simultaneous published a guide for using BSD code in GPL projects.

That was last week and there were about 5 submissions in the firehose about it. The Slashdot editors in their infinite wisdom chose to ignore this when it was new and instead waited a week and then published a summary with no link to the original SFLC article and no mention at all of the guide.

You can distribute BSD code inside of a GPL project. When the SFLC published the results of its efforts in the wireless driver dispute, they simultaneous published a guide for using BSD code in GPL projects.

That was last week and there were about 5 submissions in the firehose about it. The Slashdot editors in their infinite wisdom chose to ignore this when it was new and instead waited a week and then published a summary with no link to the original SFLC article and no mention at all of the guide.

Reading quickly, the real meat of this is code analysis document, where the SFLC seems to argue, contrary to Theo and Reyk, that the files with the added copyright notices do qualify for derived work. (Still reading it.)

I mention in an earlier post an SFLC document about originality requirements. They've also put together a set of guidelines for using permissively-licensed software in a GPL project.

These are both in TFA, but it seems that most people here will find them more interesting than what the writeup actually says. Of course, important caveats: if this is really important to you, consult an unbiased lawyer.

I mention in an earlier post an SFLC document about originality requirements. They've also put together a set of guidelines for using permissively-licensed software in a GPL project.

These are both in TFA, but it seems that most people here will find them more interesting than what the writeup actually says. Of course, important caveats: if this is really important to you, consult an unbiased lawyer.

Ok, they are indeed announcing that supposed changes by the Linux Wireless folks involved in this dispute will be released under a dual GPL or ISC license. But the last time I heard about this dispute, Reyk and Theo's most pressing claim was that the Linux Wireless developers in question illegally put their own copyright and license notices on work that they did not own; i.e., their position is that the Linux Wireless folks, in more than one instance, hadn't done enough original work for their release to qualify as a derived work of Reyk's code.

I don't see anything in TFA that directly addresses this. There is a link to a new document about originality requirements under the law (which I haven't read yet, I'll admit), but I would hope that this issue was addressed explicitly.

We also discuss Google's super-secret project that may or may not be happening around creating a new open source software licensing model.

Google to Change the World with New Open Source License

* Subhead - We might be making this up

Well, at least they're honest.

Anyway, assuming this is true... I don't see the big difference or importance. In one way everyone is free to choose and create a licence that suits his needs. On the other the creation of yet another licence that means the same than already existing ones isn't really something to be in awe about. If it provides more "legal protection" people will complain it's legalese, if it doesn't then it's no different from dozens of other ones. A "simplified open source license that makes it easier for developers to stay "within the spirit" of the license in addition to the law" doesn't mean anything in concrete terms, and what is worse makes the assumption that current popular free licences somehow make it hard to do the same.

If in the last months so many interpretations were made regarding a licence as simple as the ISC licence I'm not sure any licence in the world is invulnerable to different interpretations. On that note the SFLC has issued a position regarding the GPLv2/GPLv3/BSD licences mixing that have been all the rage.

The SFLC just released their statement on this issues, right here.

It shouldn't take long for the news to propagate, but since you seem interested in this subjects I think you will find it interesting.

I don't take it as "definitive" or anything, appeal to authority as its limits, but since IANAL and they apparently are it's at least something to be taken into account, even if one disagrees.

Services
SFLC offers direct services to nonprofit FOSS developers without charge, as well as resources for everyone.

There's a button on the SFLC Web site where you -- yes YOU -- could make a donation to promote the defense of Free and Open-Source Software.

While it's good that Monsoon's finally agreed to uphold the GPL agreement I was rather hoping that they'd hold out, if only to establish precedent for future actions.

Still, there's a chance that other companies approached by the SFLC will look to this act before deciding to refuse to comply with the GPL they're trading under.

Hopefully...

"I have to say that I agree. In all such things I ask myself: "What would Eban Moglen do?" Until recently he was the legal genius behind the GPL. (maybe he still is, I'm a bit confused) His approach was always to resolve the problem without needing to sue. It really does seem to me that these guys went off half cocked. If you want to see what happens when you do that, check out SCO."

You do realise that the chairman and Director-Counsel of the SFLC is Eben Moglen right?

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/about/team/

That's never been done before.. and it could spell a new era of Free Software development.

On 16/09/2007, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Eben Moglen wrote:
> > We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and
> > we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us
> > instead of helping.
>
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/jul/31/openhal/
>
> As I said in a former email, this has several glaring problems.
>
> As far as I understand, this is a public statement, even if it predates
> the issue at hand.
>
> Please fix it in a timely manner, or take it down for now.

Most noticeably, I fail to see any credits to Reyk Floeter in the
above press release.

Moreover, back when the release was first posted at the above address,
there was no credit even to the OpenBSD project, which I found simply
outrageous! Only after I (and possibly others) have complained to
SFLC did they append the release to give some really vague mention
that OpenHAL is based on OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL.

Eben, is this the work that you are doing in bringing the communities
together, by omitting such vital information as giving credit to the
people and projects who performed most of the work? After all of
these mistakes, after ignoring the ethical side of the relicensing,
after failing to inform when relicensing is even legally an option,
are you seriously even surprised about the negative attention that
SFLC is getting now? Taking a step aside, don't you agree it is
well-deserved?

http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/156258

The lawyer also disagree with you.

I used to run the GPL enforcement efforts at FSF. Since I left FSF, I am involved with similar work now that I'm with the Software Freedom Law Center.

The first thing to do is a always to notify the copyright holders of the software in question. They are the only people who have the power to carry out an GPL enforcement action. Once the copyright holders want to do the enforcement, then you could have them contact the Software Freedom Law Center for help. We do pro bono GPL enforcement for community projects when we can. We can't promise to take on every client who contacts us, but I am sure a GPL enforcement case with good facts would get serious consideration.

Mentioning the EFF in this context is sheer confusion, though. EFF has nothing to do with issues related to Free Software, they don't hold any copyrights on software.

Sun's patent covenant applies to any version of the ODF specification in which Sun participates. Subsequent specifications built on those versions would also benefit from the covenant to the extent that they are the same as the earlier versions. Only changes introduced by the new version would be excluded. That's the sense in which the covenant was framed by Sun (I was involved), and in which it has been understood by the reasonable people who have read it to date. Analysis by independent counsel raised no such issue - do you have independent counter-advice?

Your argument is based on a twisted interpretation of the Sun covenant, and your inflammatory and alarmist language about "holding to hostage" is incorrect. Sun has no intention of leaving the OASIS OpenDocument TC anyway, so in addition it's intensely hypothetical. I note you argued this same point before, at length. Please stop. You are wrong, and I am actually in a position to assert that.

Over at the Software Freedom Law Center, we've published a white paper regarding the new rules. That might be of interest to some.

Over at the Software Freedom Law Center, we've published a white paper regarding the new rules. That might be of interest to some.

How about an opinion from a "lawyer"?

Dude (article poster), go ask Eben Moglen, or better yet, get some *free* advice from his company/association/whatever: The Software freedom law center.

Slashdot is good for general ideas (like links above), just don't base a project/life decision on comments made by you know who-where-how/old posters.

Good luck.

Up until now I was expecting that when Dell rolls out their PCs with Linux pre-loaded later this month, the price for the same system with Windows would only be about $30 more. And for that little difference, I thought, of course you might as well buy Windows just-in-case, and dual boot linux.

But if paying Microsoft means that I would be contributing to the death-by-lawsuit of free software, forget it. I'll buy the Ubuntu-only pre-load from Dell, and donate the difference to the Software Freedom Law Center or the The Linux Foundation's Linux Legal Defense Fund.

Microsoft should compete with free software on the merits, not on the threat of their legal department or the FUD of their marketing department.

From http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/pate nt-tax.html

"Why Do You Call It A Patent "Tax"?

Patents are granted and enforced by the federal government, who before 1989 did not allow patents on software. In that year, the federal courts declared software algorithms to be patentable, despite the fact that the software industry had been booming without government intervention in the form of patents. Today, software developers continue to pay patent holders for permission to distribute their own programs, and the government continues to enforce this scheme."

Let's skip past the ars write up, whose factually inaccurate and dismissive assertions have been unquestioningly repeated all over this thread, and look at the actual document that the SFLC released. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/pate nt-tax.html

First some corrections:

- SFLC does not assume that Windows and Office are the only products that Microsoft sold during the time period in question, they specifically state that the 4 billion dollars in settlements were only the settlements "to plaintiffs claiming that Microsoft's Windows and Office products infringed their patents."

- Similarly, SFLC does not claim that all of Microsoft's legal fees are directly related to patent defense, in fact how much Microsoft pays in legal fees overall is never mentioned. The fees they talk about are those specifically related to patent defense, and they get their figures directly from a published 2005 interview with Brad Smith, Microsoft's General Counsel.

Ok, now to the actual main points of the study.

Software patents are not about innovation. The software industry was doing very well before the legal system did an about face and decided that software could be patented. The software industries in the rest of the world do perfectly well without patents. And, just in case you thought that the whole system was just harmless, the biggest player in the industry has to pay billions of dollars in legal and settlement fees just to get their products out of the door. Imagine then the what trouble these patents must cause for people without the ability to pay billions of dollars in settlement costs in order to distribute software that they independently wrote.

Playing with software patents gets everyone burned.