Slashdot Mirror
19 Patents Given To GPL Community
Raph responded:
For now, I'm only intending for the grant to extend to the GPL. One particular hazard I want to avoid is a potential proprietary licensee for the patent simply creating a "libraphspatent.so" (or "RAPHPTNT.DLL") that's licensed under, say, the X license, and then linking to their proprietary code. That scenario neither compensates me for the patents nor does it particularly help the cause of free software.
That said, I'm not by any means a GPL bigot. I've released quite a bit of code under less restrictive licenses in cases where I've felt the use of the code is more important than the other goals the GPL promotes. I just didn't see a way to make this grant extend to these other licenses without creating a serious hazard. There are some other people working to create patent pools for the benefit of free software generally, and I'm happy to work with them in this direction.
The Advogato article has more details on the grant itself and discussion of the consequences.
> This is only useful to the GPL loving community.
>This is just another example of people using "intellectual property"
>laws to restrict sharing, just as the GPL restricts sharing.
Thank Microsoft for this. You're going to be seeing more and more of this. After what the slimeballs at Microsoft did to Kerberos, you're going to see very few people release this kind of code under a BSD-type license anymore.
It may be time for non-GPL open source users and producers to assemble a patent and trademark warchest against the GPL supporter's anti-competitive practices.
how many people really speak Z80 any more?
Game Boy programmers, graphing calculator programmers, etc. Have you been to Zilog's Z80 Microprocessor page?
Will I retire or break 10K?
How's that?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Which means it's illegal to release a GPL'd plugin for Winamp, right? Winamp plugins are DLLs, which are dynamically linked to the closed-source audio player. Or would Winamp be part of the "operating system" the plugin runs on under section 3 of the GNU GPL?
Will I retire or break 10K?
browse a few of the patent documents ... converted them to gifs
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black; the compression behind GIF itself is patented. On the other hand, had you said PNG images...
Will I retire or break 10K?
"unless they're happy just knowing that some of their code is buried in a Microsoft or Apple program somewhere, one that they can't even use unless they pay Microsoft or Apple for the privilege. Still, it seems that there are such folks out there."
Thats me, althought why would I have to pay MS or apple, its the BSD license.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Where can one obtain a copy of the above-mentioned Halloween Documents? I have been looking for a copy without a large degree of sucess, which is not uncommon, as search engines despise me...anyone who can help me out of my ignorance would be greatly appreciated- Rainwalker rainwalker@dr.com
>GPL can never be used in a commercial product
>So what are Red Hat, SuSE, and Caldera, to name
>but a few? Perhaps you meant "closed source"
>product, rather than "commercial". There is a
>difference.
Erm, and I must split the hair further.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
OK, the patent license requires that the code implementing the patented techniques be licensed under the GPL. What prevents a person from using that GPLed code in a proprietary program? The copyright on the code. But nowhere in the GPL (that I can see) does it require that the code by copyrighted. In which case a company could hire someone to write a bunch of code, GPL it, but not copyright it. In which case they could use it as much as they wanted, violating the license, but it wouldn't matter because no copyright would be violated (alternatly, the copyright owner could "turn a blind eye" to the violation if given some, ahem, compensation).
There are probably holes in my argument, but in any case I think someone should take a closer look at this patent license. Personally I would be much happier if he entered into a patent-sharing group, which would not only allow it to be used by anyone (GPL, BSD, and yes, commercial code) but would most likely introduce many new patents into public availability, which seems like it would help free software much more than just these patents on their own will (not to slam on his contribution, it was a very nice thing to do).
My take on this is that software patents are still bad. But there's not a hell of a lot we can do about them at this point, since the big corporations can put a lot more money into keeping them (not to say we shouldn't TRY, but...). Since we can't stop software patents, we instead use patents against those companies.
As for the comment about publishing as prior art instead of patenting, i see two problems: First, the big corporations can use them as well, which is why Ralph Levien went the patent route. Second, we've seen before how often the USPTO grants patents even with the existance of prior art.
-----
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
Patent licenses are interpreted according to state law. I have no idea what state's law applies here, so let's look at 'generic' law.
Licenses are usually contracts. A contract requires an offer and an acceptance, and 'consideration' by both parties. Here, the patentee isn't getting anything concrete, but he is getting a forbearance from the licensee. The problem I see is that the forbearance is not to violate the terms of the license, probably not consideration in most states.
Estoppel is still a doctrine that can apply. The Federal Circuit, the main court for interpreting patent law does have its own law regarding estoppel. All estoppel is premised not in the idea of contract law, but of equity. In patent cases, estoppel requires that the conduct of the patentee induce reasonable reliance in the accused infringer, to the detriment of that infringer. (For an important case in this area, see A. C. Aukerman Co. v. R. L. Chaides Construction Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(en banc)). That would seem to fit here.
35 U.S.C. 285 also allows courts to assess the costs of litigation, including attorneys fees to the prevailing party in a patent case if the case is exceptional. Lacking an objectively reasonable basis can be a basis for finding a case exceptional.
#define DISCLAIMER
#ifdef DISCLAIMER
As with all things legal, YMMV, which means getting a legal opinion on your own circumstances from a qualified professional if you really have something on the line.
#endif
Cerberus (Kerberos?) did not have 50 heads. Hydra, another mythical beast (actually Cerberus' "sister") had 50 snake-heads and even if you managed to cut one, it would grow back again soon. In the end Hercules killed the bitch
Patents on algorithms are wrong, unless they are licensed to everybody for free use as they see fit, especially with the lifetime of patents being effectively forever compared to the rate of progress in the computing industry.
--
The obvious question no-one's asked yet is who's coding up reference implementations of the algorithms? (NB I'm posting this before reading the patents themselves, so I guess this may be in there already)
From the patent titles and troubles I've had in the past some of that there code would be dandy in Ghostscript, and as everybody has pointed out there are things in there that would be good in printer drivers. Is there anywhere registering people's intent to code these up?
--Baz
Tell that to the FreeBSD people, when they wish they could use Linux drivers.
I don't want to sound like I'm flaming, so read carefully.
That's not sharing--that's "helping yourself". Sharing is when I own something and I give it to you. Helping yourself is when I own something and you come and take it.
If the FreeBSD people want to use Linux drivers, they can ask the driver maintainer to share. The GPL puts no restrictions on the maintainer as to who he can share with. But FreeBSD people can't help themselves to GPL'd code. In the case of FreeBSD this is somewhat unfortunate, but it guards against the case of someone like Microsoft helping themselves.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Everytime I read the GPL I end up feeling like I am totally missing the point of contract. Can someone post a "GPL for Dummies" on this thread so I can finally figure what I can and cannot do under GPL and piss off IDG at the same time? Some areas I would like cleared up are:
1. Can I use code protected by GPL on a web site that has advertising?
2. If I write a commercial program that uses a line from GPL protected code, do I have to make all my code GPL?
3. Do I still own the copyright if I license something under GPL.
These would be a good start in my understanding of GPL.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
True, but thanks to the (rather loose) US patent law, someone could then patent a similar process (I'm sure there's more than one patent on a dithering pattern, for example) and then sue *your* pants off, even though you had prior art. However, IANAL.
Remember that recently Microsoft received a patent on software packaging systems. Ugh. Like that's not a case that SCREAMS prior art. *sighs*
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Perhaps reading the post first would help. :^)
It's not GNU that patented these; it's an individual. Read next time, rather than pouring hot grits in your ears. Thank you.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
I am a GPL fan, but I still wish the owner of these patents would license them for free use by any program consisting entirely of free software (this, of course, includes all legal GPL'ed programs). That would still avoid giving a license to any program that contained any proprietary software, but would enable use in programs that are covered by the BSD copying conditions, Mozilla conditions, etc., but only in cases when they are not linked against proprietary software.
That said, I should disclose that I personally believe that the correct interpretation of current patent laws in the US (if only more courts would agree with me) is that software is not patentable. I also believe that software should not be patentable.
This is where the hypocracy of "open" license restrictions cuts both ways.
By using my license terms, proprietary vendors will benefit as MUCH as the open source community - that is the portion of the open source community that is willing to accept my code with an unrestricted license, as opposed to a heavily restrictive license.
I can argue that my terms are no more restrictive than the GPL, in which (insert qualifier here) redistributed GPL application (there, happy?) community benefits infinitely more than then everyone else, where "everone else" includes not only proprietary vendors, but anyone using a different open source license, including the LGPL!
Contributors who entertain the "proprietary applications are evil" mindset will of course think twice - since I endorse "commercial" use (in the traditional meaning of the term), my license is inherently evil - I dare allow people to make real money!
On the other hand, for contributors who would like to share source code freely, and be able to use it in personal projects or in projects at work (where most of us professional programmers do the majority of our coding), these terms are perfect.
Look, this all boils down to commercial vs. non-commercial use. The GPL was _designed_ to virally convert software into effectively non-commercial works, under the guise of protecting programmers from being taken advantage of by evil corporations. While this is a real problem, I think the cure is worse than the disease.
Not all corporations are evil. And some of us code for a living at companies who require their software divisions to cover their own expenses plus a reasonable margin. We would like to use open source code, and are perfectly happy to contribute back to the community. Well, unless we're willing to release code just to have a public fork created that we cannot use, the GPL is unacceptable.
Licenses like the BSD allow us to use and share code for use at home or at work. All "proprietary applications are evil" rhetoric aside, I don't think there is anything wrong with this.
GPL defenders need to spend more time justifying their license for what it is, instead of deflecting criticism through semantics or rhetoric.
This is really good stuff... linux support for advanced printing technology (I don't mean super-advanced, just getting the best out of the deskjet I have here) is lagging behind, and these algorithms may well be as good or better than the ones the vendors use in their windows drivers.
There's some good discussion on the GPL/patent issues at the advogato link, so go read that before posting here.
Jules
-- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a perl script.
He isn't invoking someone else's name in his crusade though, like the crusaders who "killed for Christ".
No, he isn't invoking someone else's name. Instead he's invoking the word "freedom", but in reality he means something only tangentally related to freedom.
How is this hypocrisy? The FSF does not promote software that is unrestricted.
Then they should stop using the term "Free Software". If the FSF cares about freedom, then the only patents that should be allowed in GPLed software would be completely unrestricted ones. Patents are intrinsically anti-freedom, unless they are freely licensed to everyone.
This is about power and the freedom that comes from having power, not about pacifism.
Oh yes, freedom for RMS. But what about the rest of us who can't live off of donations?
Why pretend that the GPL doesn't represent a political agenda. It does. If you can't or won't live with it, you still have the Microsoft option.
If you can only see the two extremes, then you've probably been brainwashd by one of them.
I hate software patents. I don't have any problems with copyright though. I believe creators should be able to do what they want with what they create. Copyright is consistent with that, but patents are totally counter to it.
The more I look, the more evidence I see that RMS doesn't give a damn about anyone's freedom but his own.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
The last few months have seen arrogant corporations sitting on patents and blocking progress and interoperability, all on the lie of "we have to protect our IP interests"
OSS has always lead by example, and this is a particularly good message to send to the US Patent Office - if people are voluntarily giving away these "business critical rights" then that's more fuel for the patent reform campaigners.
The OSS & other development online communities normally play straight and fair, and gets shafted (like the recent 50 headed guardian dog of Hades debacle). This is a clear message that the OSS is beginning to fight back on corporate territory.
I salute this action, and recommend that the OSS begin putting into place procedures that protect algorithms and source from the corporate raiders.
Enough playing nice!!!
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Yes, as the posted article reads: "For now, I'm only intending for the grant to extend to the GPL." He does have reasons for doing so, although it would have been nice for it to have been under the LGPL perhaps.
-skip
Now, suppose people write code based on this patents and the owner decides to revoke the GPL-use license. Fine, we can't write new code based on that patent any longer. But what happens to GPL code already written? So one can't use the algorithm but can re-use the code? Doesn't make sense.
The language "fully paid up" in the patent grant at http://www.levien.com/patents.html, and the fact that document is called a grant indicate that it is a non-revokable conveyance of rights. While I find software patents in general to be execrable, a grant like this allows patent holders to do right for the public benefit while putting themself at minimal disadvantage to proprietary competitors. Until we get widespread patent reform, we can only hope for more grants like this one.
And... isn't the real Bruce rather glib? That could be a clue, because this was a very terse reply.
Upon seeing the box was too small, Schrodinger's Elephant breathed a sigh of relief.
Not at all!
This is only useful to the GPL loving community.
This is just another example of people using "intellectual property" laws to restrict sharing, just as the GPL restricts sharing.
I'd really like to see an interview of Raph Levien where he talks about what he thinks might be good applications of each patent he's released.
Consider the Eyeglasses with spectral color shift which while very interesting eldue me as far as practical applications go.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What happens when someone writes a piece of proprietary software using an algorithm described in one of these patents? Will you sue to enforce the position?
If the answer is yes, then you're just as guilty as the big bad corporations of stifling competition in the industry by using the terribly confused patent office to restrict the use of mathematical algorithms in developing products.(I'm not terribly familiar with the patents in question, but mostly they look like signal processing algorithms, and to my mind that means they are just mathematics.)
If the answer is no, then you should ask your lawyers if the patent will hold it's value. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you have to enforce a patent against all violators for it to continue to be valid.
Software patents are all around bad. Software is just an extension of discrete mathematics, and mathematics were never intended to be patentable.
IMHO, the best thing for people who want freedom to do is to publish their algorithms so that someone else can't come along and patent it later. Prior art databases are a noble cause.
If you want to force people to put their software under GPL, then you might be on the right track. I question the morality of that though. Forcing people to use your definition of freedom (even though it is a pretty good one, and better than most), isn't as free as it could be.
Despite how good this may seem, I still feel uncomfortable whenever there are software patents. Although I prefer something like the BSD license to the GPL for software projects, I can see why people would prefer to prevent people from stealing their code without contributing to it.
However, for patents, the GPL seems to go against my very beliefs of freedom. People should be allowed to implement any algorithm and use it for any project (commercial or Open Source). That seems more important to me than anything in the Open Source philosophy. Patenting things under the GPL license violates that freedom.
The stupid lameness filter won't let you use == in a subject... It seems like that should be fixed (at least for a site like this)
I tired to actually browse a few of the patent documents but the tifs take an age to download.
.oO0Oo.
could someone drop a link in when they've downloaded them and converted them to gifs or something.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
We've seen rant after rant against software patents on slashdot since time began. Now we have a case where software patents are being assigned specifically for use by GPL licensees. Some people might believe this is a good thing. Bruce Perens seems to imply from his statement elsewhere that software patents are at least compatible with the idea behind the GPL.
The problem is, they are mistaken.
The League for Programming Freedom's opinion in 1991 was that overall software patents do far more harm than good. They did not seek to differentiate between patents that were held by large companies, by individuals, or by organizations. Software patents place a burden on the authors of software of all kinds to ensure that their patents are licensed properly. This makes software more difficult to write and stifles innovation merely to give patent lawyers something to do.
If you have an innovative software idea that you wish to give people, publish it. Establish prior art so companies can't establish a patent later. That's the best you can do, and promotes the freedom of ideas that the GPL is supposed to promote far better than the GPL itself does.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
Raph said "For now, I'm only intending for the grant to extend to the GPL". I think this may have been answered previously in another discussion, but is it actually possible to change the license on code that is already GPLed? Am I just being stupid here?
--
Everything I know in life I learnt from
My understanding of the Free software cause is to make software free - not only monetarily but as in freeing software authors from constraints. Patenting software and allowing it to be free for only free software only makes it monetarily free; it doesn't help in the goal of making authors lifes easier. This is also why I believe in the LGPL for libraries; this helps make the life of authors writing both free and none free applications easier. You take away freedom when you descriminate against the commercial software writer.
I see no reason why this different licensing scheme could not and should not coexist. The GPL is not taking away any rights: just providing some further rights under a somewhat - often very - restrictive model.
I think that the plethora of available licensing schemes provides more freedom for programmers; anyway nobody is forced to release anything under the GPL unless he's basing his work on GPL'd code to start with.
I am slightly in favor of the BSD scheme vs. the GPL one, but I basically think each programmer should decide for herself.
Following my istinct I would release my code under the public domain, or with no restriction whatsoever: but I've seen code released like this being stolen and copyrighted by somebody else, leaving the original author with no rights to it; that's why licensing schemes such as GPL, BSD or Artistic exist in the first place.
>As the VC community realizes there is little to no money to be made in GPL software, the spigot will close.
I doubt it. It has been around quite a while, and it is expanding.
>as in freedom, as opposed to socialism
You might not realize it, but this is quite an inflamatory remark (to Western European ears, at least). Be more careful. [I, FWIW, happen to hold the exact opposite point of view]
--
fB
Am I wrong or these patents are only valid for the United States of America?
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Come forward and post as yourself, you blissoming anile beldam, and stop irrumating up yourself.
You're just the sort of person Spooner would have called a 'shining wit'.
http://www.doublezero.uklinux.net/
Doublezero: like Slashdot, only less useful.
Regards,
January
Yes, thank you for sticking up for me.
I was the third (I think) post on that article, and the other two hadn't been posted by the time I was there, so how can my article be redundant? You just want to lower my karma don't you.
http://www.doublezero.uklinux.net/
Doublezero: like Slashdot, only less useful.
Sharing isn't an act of the recipient; it's an act of the giver.
:-)
When I release software with an LGPL license, I'm not just freely sharing with everyone. I'm making it available under a specific set of circumstances.
I am making an active effort *not* to share with everybody! If my AIM client were in the public domain, AOL could very well snatch it, and sell it!
You say that the FreeBSD people can ask the driver maintainers to share. That implies that the drivers aren't currently being shared! QED.
In a perfect world that would be true.
Perfect freedom can't exist in the presence of people opposed to it. Meta-restrictions (that prevent further restrictions) better serve freedom than allowing anyone to impose any restrictions they care to.
Another "meta-restriction" which I think would serve freedom far more effectively, would be to create a new "Public Patent License". PPL patents would be usable by anyone, as long as they made all of their patents (past and future) also PPL. In some ways this is a stronger restriction than the "GPL only patents", because it forces the users of the patent to open all of their patents, not just the source to the one program that uses the patent. It's a far less onerous restriction though, because it's using patents to fight patents, not patents to fight everyone who doesn't use GPL.
Thanks for the input. Upon reading the licenses, I'm leaning more towards GPL. But, perhaps a little explanation:
I actually am a PHB in a small company. We've tried (and spent money) on some products. They suck. There's no standards. Etc. We want a product that will work for us. I've started talking with sourcexchange. We need to pick a license. We have no desire to sell software. What would work better for us (and society) would be to have this be the dominant app in that particular niche. I've met the assholes who run the companies that make the closed source crap. I don't want my money funding their company or their product. The little bit of limelight from a BSD product doesn't help. I don't want to bring the product back in house (and likely can't, as it seems that my company would hold joint rights with the programmer(s)) so why bother with the Mozilla, Novell, etc. licenses?
Unfortunately, even the PHB has his own PHB's to answer to, as well as lawyers. But again, thanks for the comments.
(Yup, -1 offtopic, but I needed to say thank you. BTW, the thank you extends to everyone in the thread. This just looked like the best place in the thread to say thanks. Oh, and if you want any more details about the particular project: ghowell@@NOSPAMolg.com)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Sharing isn't an act of the recipient; it's an act of the giver.
Exactly my point. And since the giver is also the person who chose the license, the GPL doesn't "restrict sharing".
Maybe you'd like to amend your previous statement?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Reading through his patents, I found some trippy sunglasses!
A first optical filter, worn over the left eye is provided having a spectral response containing three peaks; one for each of red, green, and blue, tuned to the maximum responsiveness of the human eye to red, green, and blue colors. A second optical filter, worn over the right eye, is similar to the left optical filter, but with the peaks tuned to complementary portions of the visual spectrum. In this manner, a dimension of color perception is added, because each eye sees different colors for the same object which when combined represent the actual color of the object. "
Now the GNU can distribute these at all of their concerts for the big finale!
Yeeah!
___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux
hyperpoem.net
Yeah, so, if BSD were allowed, someone might take this code, shove it into a BSD system, then make a proprietary fork... preventing all of us from using the existing code? Of course not! We all still get to use the code.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of documented tricks for wrapping GPL'd software inside non-GPL'd software "safely"; see Tom C.'s "condom" library for an example of how you can do it.
It comes down to this: If you give something away enough that people can use it effectively, they will probably find a way to use it without sharing if that's really important to them. It doesn't matter; your code is still free.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I don't get it. GPL implies restrictions and use w/o royalties while patents imply another concept altogether. What would be the point of GPL'ing a patent unless you wanted to make some vague distinction in the use of the patent under one set of licencees vs. some other set of licencees. So if you use a GPL patent code chunk linked to some other GPL code chunk then ok. But if you link a GPL patent code chunk to some other non GPL code chunk then the patent would require enforable royalties? Do I have it right?
There's one point I'd like to bring up here; Raph specifies
I'm not actually sure how this could be handled; any solution I can think of would either leave open the possibility of the GPL being changed at some future time to a more restrictive license and the patent therefore being usable only for software under that license (this is if you change the wording to read "...under the latest version of the GNU General Public License"), or wouldn't solve the problem anyway (this is if you change it to read "...under version 2, or at the user's choice, any later version, of the GNU General Public License...", which, if I recall correctly, is the standard wording for most GPL'd software).
Anybody got any better ideas?
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
Somewhat misleading. I don't know whether your BSD bias has crept into your comments, or whether your (apparent) ignorance on some of the fine points has caused the bias in the first place.
Either way, some clarification is in order.
GPL can never be used in a commercial product
So what are Red Hat, SuSE, and Caldera, to name but a few? Perhaps you meant "closed source" product, rather than "commercial". There is a difference.
GPL code can never be used in any application that is not also 100% GPL code
Not quite correct. It can be used in any non-GPL'd application that is not distributed. There's a lot of software development done entirely for in-house use. The GPL might technically apply to these if they use GPL'd source, but in practise it never applies if the application is never distributed to anyone else.
Finally, any mods made to GPL code must be made public - you must post the source, or provide it on request.
Same error as above. If I never post (or otherwise distribute) the binaries of mods I make to GPL'd code, I need never post the sources, either, and I can tell anybody asking for them to buzz off.
BSD can be used by anybody, for anything.
True. Some people, though, regard this as a serious flaw. Microsoft (among others) has made a lot of money off of BSD'd code, with no particular benefit to the rest of the developer community.
The proponents of GPL feel that imposing a non-commercial business model is the best way to keep software "free"
Cart before the horse. The GPL doesn't impose a non-commercial business model, although it does tend to (as a byproduct, via free market forces) enforce an upper limit on "what the market will bear" for the software.
Proponents of BSD feel it is the only "free" license, as it doesn't require you to become a non-profit to use the code
Neither does the GPL.
you can integrate it [BSD code] into proprietary [closed source] apps
This is certainly an advantage for those that want to take proprietary advantage of code somebody else has written. It's hard to see how this is an advantage to the authors of such code, unless they're happy just knowing that some of their code is buried in a Microsoft or Apple program somewhere, one that they can't even use unless they pay Microsoft or Apple for the privilege. Still, it seems that there are such folks out there.
Personally, I think that corporate subsidized BSD-type development WILL easily surpass GPL's contributions - as more and more corporations realize the value of releasing open source.
To date this doesn't seem to be the case. Most corporate developed software that has been open sourced has been released under some license that is far more restrictive than BSD.
Some corps release their work as GPL to prevent competitors from being able to benefit from it,
Not quite. The competitors may certainly benefit from it, since they may freely use it. However, the competitors won't benefit any more than the original authors, since they (competitors) can't incorporate the GPL'd source into their own closed product, or if they do incorporate the GPL'd code, they must then open up their own extensions such that the original company also has access. (Effectively levelling the playing field for all involved.)
Of course, there are problems using BSD code in GPL applications, as GPL demands that the code become GPL. In most of these cases, the BSD authors have allowed GPL forks of the code.
In most cases the BSD authors have no control over whether their code goes into GPL'd applications. So long as the BSD license doesn't place any restrictions on the code that the GPL doesn't (and in some cases where there's an advertising or author-acknowledgement clause, it might), the GPL "infects" any BSD-ish (or public domain, for that matter) code that gets rolled in to a GPL'd application. (Of course, the originalBSD or PD code is available outside the GPL). BSD authors shouldn't be particularly upset about this -- the license allows their code to be incorporated into totally closed and proprietary applications, too.
n the end, I think corporate subsidized BSD has to win. It actually has financial backing, so programmers can earn a paycheck for their work, instead of working as a waiter to subsidize your coding as one of the GPL authors recommended.
Hey, everyone should have a hobby. More seriously, whichcorporate subsidized BSD? Apple? Meanwhile, there are plenty of places (Red Hat, for example) paying programmers to write GPL'd code.
-- Alastair
not through utilizing the force of government in the form of a patent
Hmm... by force of government, do you mean copyright? Oh, wait...
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
this is a famous troll... and people fall for him all the time
As well he should. Patents are not cheap, and if someone is going to contribute their patent to GPL projects, I have absolutely no problem with their retention of patent rights for non-GPL works. After all, if one or more of these patents were to be incorporated into a GPL'ed "Killer App" that takes the world by storm -- that everyone wants -- then the Microsofts of the world should have to open their wallets.
What is interesting is what happens if lots of people were to GPL license their patents. In effect, the "GPL pool" would function as a vast cross-licensing arrangement, giving GPL authors vast resources not available to proprietary software companies.
An interesting situation would arise if more people decided to license their patents for GPL projects only. If enough key patents were to be restricted to this terms, such as patents on new audio/video codecs, it could make proprietary operating systems, for all practical purposes, illegal to use.
Make no mistake, the fight of proprietary vs free software is a fight to the death. As Microsoft has proved with their kerberos "trade secrets", the two cannot live in harmony.
The beautty is that if anyone makes modifications to your library and distributes them they will still be required to share the source code.
LGPL (in full, GNU Lesser General Public License 2.1) is a "lesser copyleft" license like NPL, which means that you can add closed-source modules to the code by simply writing them as separate .c files. But I still believe that Winamp is the operating system to which Winamp plugins are written; an operating system doesn't always mean "kernel and filesystem right on top of the bare hardware." It's anything that exposes a full set of APIs.
Will I retire or break 10K?
A good idea, though not a complete solution. Some software patents aren't held by software vendors (some have lately given up on selling software, some don't do anything but attack innocent infringers with submarine patents), and they can't be swayed by offers to license others' patents.
GPL only patents won't help in this situation either.
Nope.
The person applying the GPL to a piece of code, is making the deliberate choice not to share with all parts of the free software community.
I see no reason to amend that statement.
he is a moron
I would have hoped that the GPL could propigate on its own, not through utilizing the force of government in the form of a patent. If the patent is strictly to prevent closed-source vendors from closing it off, thats OK. But, if I were to write my own code that does the same thing as this (perhaps through reverse-engineering), and put it under BSD, would the FSF sue me for patent infringement? GPL by itself says that I cant use *the code* with any other license besides GPL or with any non-open-source software, whereas a patent seems more like I cant use *the idea*, such as Amazon one-click shopping....seems far more restrictive than the GPL by itself.
However, Bruce Perens's chapter in the book Open Sources (you can read it online) contains a nice overview of the most common open-source licenses. That's probably the closest you'll get. Also, search /. for previous discussions on the subject (especially the Ask Slashdot section, eg this one). Who knows, you might find one or two helpful comments.
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
Of course, he also explains why he doesn't use the LGPL.
Because then someone could build libpatents.so, under the LGPL, and then link their proprietary code to it.
Actually, it would be possible to forbid the latter (this is patent law, not copyright law) but he hasn't opted for that route.
Jules
-- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a perl script.
I discussed this with RMS a long time ago. He said that a GPL-only license would be sufficient.
What if RMS is wrong? The paragraph in question says:
Now, suppose people write code based on this patents and the owner decides to revoke the GPL-use license. Fine, we can't write new code based on that patent any longer. But what happens to GPL code already written? So one can't use the algorithm but can re-use the code? Doesn't make sense. So, my interpretation is that when the GPL says "licensed for everyone's free use" what it means is that there may be no restriction or any room for future restrictions. From this angle, any patent, unless irrevocably free, doesn't fit the GPL.
That's not sharing--that's "helping yourself". Sharing is when I own something and I give it to you. Helping yourself is when I own something and you come and take it.
So what do you call it when someone independently develops a piece of software, licenses it under something other than GPL, and is then told "sorry, there's a GPL patent on that algorithm you use". This is the problem with patents. If someone were to go and develop the same thing completely independently, then they're still restricted. This is why patents are evil, because they restrict us without us even knowing about them. (the same isn't true of copyright, since you can't infringe upon a copyrighted work without knowing of its existance)
If members of the free software movement start using patents to fight proprietary software, then they're really no better than people in the crusades who "killed for Christ".
I have no problem with GPL software. I'm writing software right now that I intend to release under GPL. But I believe software patents are wrong, no matter who is using them. For the FSF to condone software patents that are restricted in any way is the epitome of hypocrisy.
And this would definitely put a huge hole in the argument that GPL isn't any stronger than copyright. Copyright allows clean room reimplementation, patents do not.
Where are the credits for the original BSD coders of the IP tools used by Microsoft in Windows? for that matter, where are any credits displayed prominently in MacOS X?
If you want to release software under the BSD licence, that is fine. Any Open Source licence is better than nothing, I want to see the source.
But for my code, it's GPL all the way, so that no one can pervert the code and not let others look at it, like ms-kerberos among other things.
Yes they do - Linux distributions like RedHat are commercial GPL works. And they sell for $30 at Fry's, and $2-3 at your average swap meet. If RedHat did not have IPO funding, they would have gone out of business before they could have picked up the keys to their first office.
As the VC community realizes there is little to no money to be made in GPL software, the spigot will close. The phenominom occuring w/r/t insane stock valuations allowing these startups to purchase "brick and mortar" companies with actual profits cannot last.
To the best of my knowledge, Cyclic is the ONLY company that turned a "real" profit on GPL software. After many years in market leadership and a huge installed base, they finally managed to make more money selling support than they were spending. 'Course, they sold CVS shortly thereafter. If other companies larger than garage scale have sustained positive income-expense ratios, I'd really like to hear about it.
Use of the term "proprietary" as a purjorative is the core of GPL's intent. To prevent open source from being used in a closed source application, GPL takes the position that ALL applications must be open source. Of course, this has the side effect of making it impossible to fund a development team (except during this IPO window so often pointed to innacurately by GPL proponents.)
The FSF has been pursuing an interesting goal of making as many enabling technologies as possible available under the GPL license, in at attempt to bootstrap further GPL development. I do think this is a good thing for GPL developers, but its also exclusionary and elitist (certainly not open, without placing amusing restrictions on what "open" means.) At the individual scale, I can completely understand why a programmer would want do donate code for free use and prevent companies like M$ from "stealing" it. However, at the larger level it forces developers to choose between non-commercial (GPL) and "free" source (as in freedom, as opposed to socialism.)
At the same time, however, those of us who program for a living are developing a code base that can be used by anyone. I think that truly open code while living with some abuses will have more positive benefit than trying to force the world into a non-profit business model - which is the core platform of the GPL license community.
The debate is academic, as normal evolutionary rules will prevail, its just a matter of time. Since the GPL locks itself out from all development not done under the GPL, I believe the long term result is a foregone conclusion - corporate open source will trivially overtake GPL restricted/viral source - the resources available behind it make this simple. Look at what's happening at companies like IBM (to name just one), and you can see where the GPL is going.
The license to these patents reads thusly:
Here's my worry (and no, it's not because I don't trust Levien in particular, I'm just paranoid in general): it's very likely that the source can't be made hidden under the GPL; but under the above paragraph, could it still be possible for the Inventor to revoke the license on these patents and then demand royalties from anyone who uses them? Since I am not certain about patent law, and I don't see the word irrevocable included in the above patent license, I am left wondering.
Could a patent lawyer shed light on this? Thanks.
The Second Amendment Sisters
Finding God in a Dog
I think i prefer that no software patents are valid. Fair is fair. The US is missing out on alot by following this totally insane course of politics.
BillSF
The GPL enforces sharing. You can't even troll right.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
looks like it is him after all then
That troll has just gotten so good at copying him that it has become hard to distinguish.
Someone had a page that had the sigs of famous people, but I lost the link...
Eventually, if the right critical patents were to be licensed this way, we could find ourselves in the interesting situation where it becomes nearly impossible to develop proprietary software without infringing on on one or more "GPL patents."
... become the system!
Don't fight the system
According to the GPL's preamble, any patented code used in GPL'd code must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. Therefore, paradoxically enough, patents which are licensed only to GPL users may in fact violate the GPL.
I could be wrong; this is only in the preamble, rather than the body of the license proper (in fact, because of this, I am probably wrong). But it's something to think about. This does run somewhat counter to the GPL's philosophy, and that's not something which should just be ignored.
However, I do see what the patent holder is trying to do here. And I think it's good that finally we have some patents usable only in Open-Source software. I would make it so that the code is usable to anyone so long as the code was under any license which meets the OSD, but this is a good start.
All politics, posturing, and ranting aside, the most significant difference between licenses is best exemplified by GPL vs. BSD. (I prefer BSD, but I'll try and keep my bias down... :)
GPL can never be used in a commercial product without negotiating for a special license to a forked version from the authors, this is rarely done, and the price demanded is usually obscene (I've been quoted $100k and up.) Also, GPL code can never be used in any application that is not also 100% GPL code - code it is integrated with "becomes" GPL, which has led some to call the GPL a "viral" license. Finally, any mods made to GPL code must be made public - you must post the source, or provide it on request.
BSD can be used by anybody, for anything. The license generally requires some sort of credit be given to the authors, like about box line or manual entry.
The proponents of GPL feel that imposing a non-commercial business model is the best way to keep software "free" - the required source mod release certainly helps. Detractors feel it is unreasonably restrictive in a world where there is insufficient income from selling support or manual to make a living for all but a very small niche of apps. IPO funding should not count in this argument without also taking into consideration the "actual" income of these IPO money pits.
Proponents of BSD feel it is the only "free" license, as it doesn't require you to become a non-profit to use the code, and you can integrate it into proprietary apps as well as release some (or all!) of your libs/code as open source for others to use - its a nice middle ground. Detractors generally take the position that all proprietary applications are evil, and I have yet to hear a reasonable counter to the middle ground other than "proprietary applications are evil". (sigh)
Personally, I think that corporate subsidized BSD-type development WILL easily surpass GPL's contributions - as more and more corporations realize the value of releasing open source. Some corps release their work as GPL to prevent competitors from being able to benefit from it, which does makes sense in some strategically important areas. This is one place where non-profit restrictions make sense, although "viral" terms are another matter...
In any case, I see more corps moving towards BSD type licenses - its the only way corps can freely share code, and the entire open source community can benefit, not just "proprietary applications are evil" fanatics. Of course, there are problems using BSD code in GPL applications, as GPL demands that the code become GPL. In most of these cases, the BSD authors have allowed GPL forks of the code.
In the end, I think corporate subsidized BSD has to win. It actually has financial backing, so programmers can earn a paycheck for their work, instead of working as a waiter to subsidize your coding as one of the GPL authors recommended.
His license reserves the right to license it for other proprietary code. Thus, it isn't a GPL-only license... Clark
OK, you got me on some symantec issues, as is often the crux of GPL defenses. (sarcastic sigh)
r/e use in "commercial product", w/r/t "Red Hat, SuSE, and Caldera, to name but a few". These products sell for little more than costs of goods. This is not a "commercial product" in any traditional sense, in that it is impossible to cover expenses other than production - no development, no growth, no reinvestment, nothing but a few tens of thousands of dollars in CD sales a month for companies burning hundreds of thousands a month in overhead. Without a 100% subsidy (such as IPO), these companies do not exist. These "products" may "sell" in commercial channels, but they are not "commercial products" in any real sense of the word.
w/r/t use of GPL code with non-GPL code for non-distribution: Yes, this is done, I've done it myself, but it is only tertiary to the issue at hand. A pencil may be a deadly weapon if used [im]properly, that is insifficient justification to classify it a weapon under normal circumstances. The primary issue are conditions to reuse and redistribute.
w/r/t GPL imposing a non-commercial business model: See comment above w/r/t selling price imposed by GPL. Any entity redistributing GPL is either a non-profit, or receives a 100% subsidy from somewhere else. I stand by my comments.
w/r/t BSD overtaking GPL via corporate sponsership: I agree that to date this has not been the case, but I believe it will be soon. I work at a Fortune <very small number> company, and we're going to be releasing code soon under BSD type terms as well. A large percentage of people I know at other companies are moving there.
w/r/t "competitors" being _able_ to use GPL code: Uh, I'll get pedantic about the symantecs here. If party A releases code as GPL, and party B integrates it into their application, then party B's application must be GPL. Therefore B is a competitor only in a non-financial sense w/r/t the application, as B can't sell the application for enough money to fund development (or anything else). If you mean they are competing for installed base in a GPL software niche, then yes. However, the use of the term "competitor" has implied connotations when used in reference to "companies" that can not apply to subsidized software development that is given away at cost of goods.
w/r/t use of BSD code in GPL applications: I'm seeing more and more BSD style licenses have terms prohibiting license conversion, to prevent the FSF from creating a GPL fork which is then closed to the original developers. My projects contain this clause. I personally consider rolling my BSD code under GPL to be as invasive as what M$ did with Kerberos, as it prevents me from taking advantage of open source improvements without my resigning to use the GPL. There are a number of reasons why some code must remain proprietary, at least until everyone in the world decides that software (and technical specifications) should always be free (in the socialist definition of that term.) Until then, BSD lets code be used in both closed and open projects. Barring GPL conversion is at least no more evil than the viral aspect of GPL.
w/r/t corporate BSD code: What I see happening is me and my peers at other software companies wanting to share libraries of reusable code. We're doing this by convincing our management hierarachy to release these components under BSD as a cross-licensing scheme that EVERYONE gets to take advantage of. I see it as a win-win for most people, except for GPL people vs. non-GPL clauses in said licenses, which frankly I go to great lengths to make sure are encorporated.
With the history the patent office is showing of ignoring even the most blatant prior art for patents, in a situation like this, getting a patent and giving free use of the patented material may be the only way of stopping a corporation from getting a patent, and using it restrictively.
No matter what one thinks of patents, patents in the hands of the open source community are far preferable to patents in the hands of exploitive parties.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
postmoderncore - art and creation are a higher purpose
Is it a victory? I find software and business only patents an aberation of the patent system. By using patented techniques which are free (as in beer), are we justifying the use of software patents to people like Unisys, Microsoft, Apple, and the rest.
I would think that the best thing that developers of free software could do is to publish their techniques so that they can be seen as prior art and prevent the USPTO from issuing patents on them.
It would be helpful if some of these patents were very general and onproveble. I.e. in the same class as "One Click Shopping". This way they could be used as a club whenever someone tries to harass a GPLed product for violating such a patent.
Before you react, read the Halloween Documents. At least one researcher in Microsoft ( Where is Vinoid Vilapolil [SP?] these days ? ) suggested this specific tactic as a way to combat free software.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
(since I don't have an account there, I'll reply here)
This is not really a problem, as either 1) you'll still be able to follow the implementation logic or 2) the system will be so foreign to your environment that the source wouldn't do you any good. At work we occasionally program for data collectors and other non-standard systems, and yes, you do have to buy expensive toolkits to take advantage of the platform. But once you do, the programs can be free. And on these platforms, the code is exactly the same as for a PC, except for screen IO and low-level keyboard IO, so you can follow and adapt anything written for them.
In short the risk of "losing" embedded code is minimal -- either it will be mostly-translatable or it will be such a tight niche that you're not going to be using it anyway. By forcing them to use GPL you're going as far as you can to make their code a contribution to free software, but how many people really speak Z80 any more?
Probably the easiest way to learn about the licenses is to read them!
Start with the X and BSD licenses. They're very short, and simple.
Then read the GPL. It's quite a bit longer, but that's partially because of the preamble. Skip it; it's not *that* important. If you want an understanding of why the GPL exists, you'd probably be better served to read in depth at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
Find the X license at http://www.x.org/xlicense.htm
Find the BSD license at http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html
Note that the advertising clause (requiring that any advertising credit the UC Regents) has been removed by the UC Regents.
Find the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
1. Yes, they've been around a long time, I've been using RedHat since version 4 something. Are you implying they paid their bills in the past off CD sales? With respects CD sales, without other funding sources they could do little more than bundle distributions.
2. I was not using socialism as a perjorative. I've read propoganda / literature on both sides of many political fences. In a GPL community, software isn't a "property" to be abused or hoarded, it is held by the people, and anyone (who subscribes to the terms) can use it, and the license even helps force them to use it only for the collective good. Am I misapplying the term here? I don't think so.
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I'm trying to push for something similar with what's currently labelled "Option F" of the Open Patent License at www.openpatents.org, and in order to help the license become more useful when it is debugged in detail by lawyers, I would like to:
This is funny. You don't allow people putting your code under the GPL. But you allow people to make your code proprietary and close their ehhancements to you and the community? Well, any contributors who think of contributing to your software have to think twice. By using your license terms, proprietary vendors will benefit more from their work than the Open Source community.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
Agreed. However, I wouldn't mind seeing a coherent implementation of Mutual Defense Against Software Patents. Fight copyright with copyleft. Fight patents with mutual defense.
Is there a good, non-flame/troll ridden site to explain the differences in the various open source licenses from a practical perspective?
I'm looking at doing something with sourcexchange, and need to have a bit more info on the licenses first. (Yes, I could read the licenses, but given the nature of them, someone must have a reasonable analysis of them somewhere already.)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Wouldn't it be perhaps easier and better to just
licence it saying "The invention in this patent
may be used freely in any software program
where the entirety of the program is available
to the public and gives the public the right to
freely use, modify and distribute said software"
maybe throw in a clause or two saying that this
also aplies to any software that links against
this code.
That would cover even BSD licences, as soon
as someone made it proprietary, they would be
violating the patent licence.
Course, I must say it would be better to just not
patent software in the first place. Allowing it
to be freely used by free software is definitly
a "good thing" but....its more the lesser evil
than the greater good.
Though, I supose if you can sleep at night, then
thats really the most important test of all. The
rest is just silly debate.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.