RTLinux Patents: Issue Closed?

Anonymous Coward writes "LinuxDevices.com reports that the Free Software Foundation has reached an agreement with Victor Yodaiken which resolves what FSF considered to be a violation of GPL by the Open RTLinux Patent License. Details are not yet available, but it sounds like the clause in the license which required users of RTLinux to keep records and provide them to FSMLabs on demand was the principal source of the violation, and that the requirement is being dropped from an updated version of the RTLinux license that will be published in the next day or two. All in all, it seems like the FSF has successfuly enforced the GPL even though it was neither an owner nor co-owner of the software (i.e. the linux kernel) whose license terms were being violated. It's interesting to see this practical example of FSF in action, and bodes well for the future of GPL -- at least in a small way."

crimoid points to ZDNet coverage of the FSF's criticism of RTLinux's licensing terms, written before such a resolution was clear. Sourceforge on Thursday quoted RTLinux CEO Victor Yodaiken, CEO as saying that his company is happy to change "minor problems" with the RTLinux license, and that discussions are still going on with the FSF about those changes.

Comments

The FSF are a bunch of real smart people

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

The bottom of the problem is that Victor should never ever have been granted a patent for RTlinux : there is plenty of prior art (DR-Multiuser-DOS, Concurrent DOS and even the current DR-DOS multitasker have been around for 15+ years and use the exact same technique). Moreover, Victor didn't "invent" all of RTlinux, his students did.

Considering that the patent is easily breakable in court, the FSF settled with Victor very easily. Why ? because RTlinux is irrelevant : RTAI is the way to go now. It provides all that RTlinux provides and much more, and it isn't encumbered by silly patents.

All in all, a much better move than it first appears by the FSF : they win on the PR front by making Victor change his license and they save money by not contesting a patent that isn't important anymore. Way to go guys !

A Win-Win Result

[Bruce Perens]

The GPL requires patents embedded in GPL code to be available for everyone's free use. This can be implemented by making the patents available for use in GPL programs. Victor thought he was already doing this, what happened here is simply the resolution of a small issue of GPL compatibility. So, Victor gets to use the patent to enforce his revenue stream and pay for more Free software, Free Software users get to use the patent for free, and as far as I can tell everyone wins.

This is not really about enforcing the GPL, it didn't get close to that point. All we had was a short public dialogue. Enforcement is something that happens in court. I wouldn't even count an out-of-court settlement as enforcement, that's just avoiding the issue because the defandant thinks that a successful enforcement would be likely or doesn't think it's worthwhile to mess around in court. This was way far from anything like that.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:"even though it was neither an owner nor co-own

[ewhac]

Contrary to popular opinion, Linux and other GPL software is actually copyrighted. The GPL is essentially a EULA, [ ... ]

Actually, that's not precisely correct, either. The GPL is definitely not a EULA. Whereas most software "licenses" purport to place conditions on how you may use the software, the GPL places conditions on how you may copy and redistribute the software. This is a subtle but important difference.

Schwab