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

I don't see it that way

[_Mustang]

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."

How do you figure? The supposed breach involved someone who is a part of the community. Presumably he shares at least some of the same views as those espoused within the GPL. That means it was a fairly good bet that he would deal with this (in an amicable manner) once it became apparent that he had violated the GPL terms.

Surely a much better test would involve people/companies who don't share the linux view of the world but who wish to leverage the codebase for their own gain..

So..

[Anonymous Coward]

FSF succeeded to turn on legions of mindless GNUtroids to jihad against RTLinux with the use of 'patent'-curseword in a case that was just a disagreement over details in the patent license. Do note, that the RTLinux policy of licensing the patent freely only to GPL software and collecting cash from proprietary code makers continues unaffected and FSF has no problems with it.

I still don't understand...

[Zwack]

Why this is called RTLinux. It's a real-time OS that is very lightweight that can run Linux or NetBSD as a pre-emptible process.

Isn't this an infringement of the Linux trademark?

Won't Linus lose the rights to the trademark if he doesn't follow this one up?

Re:I still don't understand...

[LordNimon]

Two guesses:

• Linus may already be allowing them to use the term "RTLinux". Some companies allow others to use their trademarked terms in certain circumstances. This does not dilute the trademark.

• I don't think Linus has to worry about the term "Linux" being diluted. RTLinux is based on Linux and is under the GPL, so it's not like Linux is being used as a term to describe any operating system.

The real power is in the community.

[BierGuzzl]

The FSF issued a press release because on it's own, it doesn't really have any clout to get Company x,y, or z to change. It needed the press coverage and the discussion that it generated to have any amount of sway. It has everything to do with Politics and PR rather than power and substance.

All the same, I'm glad things seem to have worked out for the best, albeit at the unfortunate cost of airing dirty laundry in public.

Still need a real test

[rkent]

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...

But in this "enforcement," as in others by the EFF, the change required was minor and the party was cooperative when the problem was pointed out -- the blurb even said that RTLinux was "happy to change" license provisions to comply with the GPL.

We still need a test against a genuinely aggressive GPL violator. One who either denies the violation, or tells the EFF to go fsck themselves. The "enforcement" so far seem like a football team scrimmaging against itself: conceptually useful, but not necessarily predictive of real victory.

Re:Still need a real test

[Todd Knarr]

True, but every time some company changes the licensing terms on software they derived from GPL'd code it's one more point on the FSF's side when they finally do meet up with a hostile infringer. Firstly it establishes a track record of the industry considering the GPL valid. Secondly, if the infringer tries to claim it's not valid because it's unreasonable, the FSF can trot out examples of the actual, reasonable changes needed to comply to rebut the infringer. It's a variation on the same principle the big boys have used: start with the small fry and the ones who don't lose much by accomodating you and build up precedent before going after larger targets.

excellent!

[Lumpy]

This looks like the first real win for the FSF. Hopefully there are many many more, Now if we could get geeks and techno-prople to donate 1/25th of what they donated to the WTC disaster they'd get some real teeth to go after larger targets.

BTW, before you click on the (TROLL) button because I didnt mention the WTC while crying and wailing.. It's an example that the geeks donated and helped overwhelmingly to the aid of those poor people and the red-cross. and the fact that many are willing to donate time to go and help that is way above and beyond the call.