Slashdot Mirror
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.
It's interesting that the GPL and Stallman's way of dealing with violations does not establish legal precedents, since it's all solved out of the courts.
I wonder how much tech lawyers must hate this kind of behavior. It means less money in their pockets if everyone starts using the GPL. We may after all be headed to a better world.
"Owner" as in owner of the copyright. Contrary to popular opinion, Linux and other GPL software is actually copyrighted. The GPL is essentially a EULA, and has no legal force unless the program it is included with is copyrighted. Since the FSF did not write the Linux kernel, they have no copyright on it and therefore no legal rights to it, so their power is limited in this matter. Presumaby Linus Torvalds holds the Linux copyright, but I really don't know. Probably it's co-owned by several people, but it does *not* include everyone who's ever submitted a patch.
Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.
.. it really has nothing to do with the future of the GPL. It would be different if RTLinux decided that they did not want to work with the GPL while using GPL'ed software.
This is a company who made an honest mistake and did what they could to fix it. Really, a non-issue. They probably has no clue that they were violating the GPL.
Unless they have signed over their copyrights (to Linus), any submitter of a patch of significant size (a patch having a work status) is a co-owner. But, IANAL. I don't know if any employee of FSF have submitted any patches of significant size, but it's not impossible.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I suppose you mean to say that the FSF is not the copyright holder of (part of) the software?
Copyright does not make you an owner, it makes you the beneficiary of a temporary exclusive right to copy the work. You can't own software.
You may think I'm nit-picking, but I think that that's a very important distinction to make. The general public's (and politician's) failure to see this point is a (the?) basic problem in the thinking behind all those bad IP laws.