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 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..
"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.
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?
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
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.
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 door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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
Bruce Perens.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions