Real Time Linux, Now Patented

This week's Linux Weekly News is reporting that Victor Yodaiken, the developer of RT-Linux (Real Time linux) has been granted a patent on method used by RT-linux. He intends that Linux users be granted a no royalty license, users of closed OS' may have to. It's unclear whether Hurd or *BSD would be granted a royalty-free license. While this could be heralded as the beginning of a new defensive patent trust for free software, it also jars somewhat with the hacker ethic. What do you think? Is Victor's idea one which is technically original, and which would not have been published had the author not had the protection afforded by a patent? Was RT-Linux's status as prior art not sufficient to keep RT-Linux free from other patent claims?

Comments

Listen to yourself.

[Chris Johnson]

Why would a person wanting to make a GPLed variation of a GPLed program need to approach anybody _carefully_? That's not right. I don't use the GPL to set up that kind of dynamic with other developers. I use it because it permanently establishes a situation where nobody _has_ to come to me hat in hand begging permission to use my code- they only need to follow the rules and keep the situation the way it is. They can annoy me, they can call my code crap, they can work for Microsoft- none of that matters, all that matters is that they have access conditional on their willingness to offer EXACTLY THE SAME DEAL! to others. NO! substitutions.

This is so, so wrong- just _listen_ to how it sounds. "Probably, maybe, other people can use this GPLed software, if they ask _nicely_ and he's not having a bad day- he probably doesn't have any reason to forbid their access to the GPLed software so it shouldn't be much of a problem..." I feel _ill_ :P isn't this exactly what's supposed to never happen? I want to see this situation nipped in the bud, immediately. This is the license I use for my software and I gave no permission for it to be rewritten in this manner...

It's been mentioned before.......

[Roofus]

....but I'll reitterate it here. One of the best solutions to this whole software patent mess is to have the USPO provide an "Open Review/Comment Period", where we could view all pantent submissions, and then have the opportunity to provide prior art, or show that it is not really a novel idea. This would provide us with the ability to strike down retarded patents without ever having to go to court.

The Open Patent License addresses these issues

[Mark Shewmaker]

BSD can be repackaged as close source. Linux cannot. If the patent usage licence resembles GPL there is no such problem. The question is that... Yes... Yet Another License...

Under the Open Patent License I'm trying to promote at www.openpatents.org, if you submit a patent via the Option currently named Option F, (the license is still under development), then the patent can be used in any software where the work as a whole is distributable under an Open Source License, (and where all other patents are at least available for use under the same Open Source License.)

The ramifications for BSD licensed code, (what's intended anyway), is that a patent in Pool F could be incorporated into that code and (usually) used freely, up until the code was made into a proprietary product. At that point someone would have to negotiate a separate patent license, as the OPL would no longer apply.

I've talked with a Patent attorney about the license in general, and found to my relief that the things I want it to do are in fact doable. I haven't asked him to go over the license in detail yet, as I don't see much point in spending money on the legal debugging when the license itself hasn't fully settled down. Once it seems that the license probably does what most parties would want it to do, or at least their goals are incorporated into it in such a way that a lawyer rewrite the wording properly, I'll take it to the lawyers again and go through a few rounds of legal debugging/general debugging.

If anyone is interested in discussing the topic in depth, there's a mailing list on the site.

point

[vyesue]

if the purpose of a patent is to encourage people to release details about their creation in exchange for protection from people stealign their idea, and thus advance technology in general, than whats the point of patenting somethign I can just go get the source for? (rtlinux is open source, I am imagining)

seems to me that the only real reason to do this is to defend against someone else patenting it, but it exists as open sourced prior art, so that probably wouldn't (or at least shouldnt) fly.

I don't get this at all.

Down with it!

[mjuarez]

If hackers all around the world started doing this, there would suddenly be no Open-Source anymore! I know I sound a bit like RMS, but you can't have "exceptions" in open source, and to have one "insider" doing it is a bad way to start.

In my opinion, all open source hackers, and people committed to developing open, free software (as in speech, not beer), should also commit themselves that, if they're developing something for the community, to completely release it under the GPL.

If we don't, developers will start like: "This software is free for end-users, home-users... etc, but not for commercial users." How exactly do you define a commercial user? Worse, how exactly do you enforce such a license? The simple, better-for-all way is simply to GPL it.

Can you say "GPL Violation"? I knew you could.

[thedward]

From the preamble to the GPL:

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.