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.
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'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?
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
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)
Doh. Forget I said any of that, and go read the Advogato article - my question is answered there.
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.
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.
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
1. Can I use code protected by GPL on a web site that has advertising?
Sure. There's nothing in the GPL that prohibits people from profiting.
2. If I write a commercial program that uses a line from GPL protected code, do I have to make all my code GPL? :)
Yes - that's the point of the GPL
3. Do I still own the copyright if I license something under GPL.
Yes, and as evidenced in that Nvidia scandal, while you can't take rights away from people once you've given them away, you can give them more. So if you want to alter the code some and rerelease a binary-only version, you have the right to relicense your code and do just that.
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.
Regards,
January
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.
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.
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/
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
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?
Sure. You do that. Then you sell me your product.
In order for your 'product' to qualify as 'gpl'd software', you have to TELL me it's GPL'd.
If it's GPL'd, you are *required* to give me source. Period.
You can't simply 'not copyright' something.
To put it differntly, if copyright is released, and it goes public domain, you *can't* make it GPL, as you no longer have the rights to assign license to it.
For the record, he's not' GPLing his patent' or 'licensing it under GPL'. It's a PATENT.
He's granting a license to use his patents when the software using the patent is licensed under GPL.
As for changing a license.. if I write code, license it under GPL, and distribute it, I cannot 'revoke' that license.
i can, however, license it under whatever other terms I want, so if I want to fork off a proprietary closed version, I am free to. It is *MY* Code.
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.
I'm not quite sure how the Trippy Sunglasses patent can be implemented in software, or whether you can do it in hardware with the Gnu Public License small print on the earpieces
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
(And as you can see at the www.openpatents.org site, Raph does seem to be open to considering something like the OPL once it's stable.)
Why not? The GPL utilizes the force of the government in the form of copyright. If not for that, it would be unenforceable. This just gives it more teeth. Also, in your scenario, the FSF couldn't sue you for patent infringement (it's not their patent), but the patent holder could. No amount of circumventing the copyright (i.e. the GPL'ed code) can negate the fact that your hypothetical BSD code infringes on his patent.
Let's think about this for a moment, shall we? BSD-style licenses allow proprietary derivatives to be made (like Kerberos!!). The patent license does not. Nor does the GPL. If the patent license were extended to all "open source" software, then placing it under the BSD license would be just as restrictive as the GPL, which would remove the whole point of doing it in the first place!
Unless, that is, you wanted commercial derivatives to be available when the patent expired. At which point Microsoft [or the largest surviving fragment thereof] sues your favorite website for keeping posts of their versions of your BSD-style source code.
These 19 patents certainly don't hurt for open source. And I don't mean to disparage BSD licenses entirely, since many such projects get quickly "embraced" by business (TCP/IP, Apache, ummm... Kerberos), but when they get "extended" you're powerless.
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
The original poster is correct -- by default all works are copyrighted by the author, who can choose to explicitly place them in the public domain.
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
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)
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.
> So what if somebody can make a closed version
> based on it? The benefits to open software,
> maintained by a community, are greater than any
> one company can provide.
Its a matter of your point of view. As I said
above, it DOES matter if you believe that people
who use software have the RIGHT to do what the
GPL allows them to do (ie, they have those
rights regardless of the GPL, its just that the
current day society does not recognize these
rights)
From that viewpoint, allowing people to use the
software in non-free software programs is sitting
back and allowing them to screw the public out of
what is there right.
ie. Its saying, "If you want to write closed
software, I can't stop you - but I will NOT help
you".
> Do you realize the irony in that statement? You
> claim that the GPL enforces sharing, yet you
> compare it with cryptographic systems designed
> to limit access!
It is somewhat ironic...but not incorrect. The
GPL is designed to protect what some (like myself)
believe is the rights of the people. Strong
cryptographic software does the same, but in
different ways (by keeping out intruders who have
no right to the system or the information in it...
ie private data)
Different types of protection for different
things.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
What right? The previous poster came with the example of FreeBSD and MacOS X. What right was taken away from the public because Apple created MacOS X? The right to FreeBSD? No, that's still available. The right to MacOS X? Where would the rights of the public come from? Would the public also had had the rights to that OS if Apple would not have written MacOS X?
-- Abigail
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
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
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.