Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Files for Software Patents
Marsala writes "Apparently Red Hat has filed two patent applications for stuff related to the TUX webserver. The patents are for Embedded Protocol Objects and Method and apparatus for atomic file look-up. One has to wonder (if their patents are granted) what their licensing terms will be.... free for open source, or a tool to try and screw other Linux distros?" As reported by Linux Weekly News.
Keekiscape Commmunications, Inc., has annonced their new entry-level first post software, Faasuto Posuto. Faasuto Posuto does not have all the features of Keekiscape's upcoming FP poster "Sakurazilla", which posts FPs automatically and includes automatic page-stretching algorithms. However, it is available to even the lowliest of ACs and has been released under the GNU General Public License. Here is the source code to Faasuto Posuto (HTML tags need to be changed):
[META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" Content="12"][iframe src="http://slashdot.org/index.pl?light=1" height=1000 width=1000][/iframe]
Keekiscape welcomes contributions. Send your modifications of this code to yhbt@yhl.hand.
This first post dedicated to Gema. Poor Gema always gets kicked around by Dejiko. Why does she have to be so mean?
Kero-chan: KEEEEKIIIIII GA DAAIIIISUUUUUKKKIIIIIII!!!!!!!
You have to think about this...are they filing for the money or will they open it? If they believe in linux as a principle of their company they won't prevent anyone else from using it, but if they simply want to make shareholders happy they might charge for it.
That is all I have to say at this time. Motherfuckers!
sulli
RTFJ.
Hmm.. Apparently lwn.net thinks patenting software is a legitimate business.
As long as you smell the hypocrisy the RedHat is cooking!
I have been pwned because my
-CPM
---You're all I need, When the water runs deep, You're all I need, Now I cry my soul to sleep -- Collective Soul, Needs
???
what the heck does this do??
Last weekend I got a call from my good friend "G", letting me know he had come across some grade-A thrill pills. My e stash had run out the day before and rather than prepare for a boring day, I found some car keys and headed over.
15 minutes later I arrive at his house. G answers the door with a sort of odd-smile. I could tell this was going to be good! Get inside, G starts talking. Several minutes later, he finally shuts up and goes back to his bedroom to get the stuff. He comes back with some "Xenadrines." He tells me his cousin got a hookup through his part-time job at GNC.
I opened two capsuls- 40 mgs- and administered them sublingually. Horrible, horrible taste. But G told me, it is the only way to go right with them. We sit down and watch judge jewdy.
A half hour passes, nothing yet. I'm a little bored now, so I go outside and have a cigarette. After I'm done, I decide it is time to go home, this sucks. But as I got up out of his plastic shit deck chair, it hit me. Wooh, this was weird. As I looked around, my head wouldn't stop moving in jerks, wtf!
I go inside and am ammidiatly accosted by his lava lamp. woh. Two seconds later though, I am on the next floor of the house. G seems to have calmed down a bit and is talking to his girlfriend on the phone. I grab the phone from him and we two talk about life for about a half hour.
After this, I was feeling really good, but G and I decide it is time to go somewhere. He reloads with another 20mgs and we get in his car and head into town. We stop at a gas station and I go inside to buy some cigarettes and poland spring to replenish my levels. Well, as it turns out I could hardly talk straight enough to ask for pall malls. The clerk ends up giving me marlboro reds, and rather than make a larger ass of myself, I quickly pay and leave.
We went over to another friend's house and the rest of the trip is pretty much a blur.
Is it not agreed in OSS community that software patents are bad?? The argument that their protecting the community is garbage. The money effort should be put into fighting software patents.
Is it just me or do both patents end with the patch for the atomic file lookup?
--
Benjamin Coates
They don't seem to define quite what it means, but as near as I can tell, it's pretty much the same thing as the atomup updates that database systems have been doing for a few decades.
What is there in Red Hat's patent application that is actually new?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
hehehehehehehe
resistance is futile!
buy my software!
--
pants ahoy
...to the community from which the spawned. I can understand them trying to 'protect' their 'intellectual property' from other firms such as M$, I would just like to urge them to remain sympathetic to the 'cause' and offer their software as a *service*. If they don't, there is little chance they could catch up with true, open source options such as Apache.
What's so special about TUX that they could patent it? Sorry for MY ignorance.
I just had an unecessarily alarmist thought. Could this be used to defeat the GNU license? Sure, you still release your source code under the GNU license, but also charge everyone for using 'your' patents.
The first, "Embedded protocol objects", seems to be saying that if you have a webpage that consists of dynamic and static content then the static content can be cached for faster access. Hardly novel.
The first, "Method and apparatus for atomic file look-up", basically says that it is a good idea if you can see if something is in a cache before requesting the operation that would put it in the cache. Again, not particularly revolutionary.
I hope they make it open source. Otherwise, they won't be Red Hat--they'd be bald! =)
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
Red Hat is the Microsoft of Linux... Ironically, this makes it the best weapon Linux has against Microsoft.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
it's also been awhile
Filed: August 22, 2001
if they were gonna open this stuff up i think they would have already
and after reading both filings i can safely say i have fucking idea what they're patenting, descriptions being pretty vague, anyone else knwo what these patents are for?
Let them patent it. Let them charge money for it. Does it make Linux less useful or more useful? Just because Linux is free does not mean that every fucking program ever compiled to run on it must be. Get your head out of your asses and start thinking about making a buck, feeding a family, running a successful business.
"never met a Microsoft zealot"
Can someone spell "Evil Empire"? :-) Let's see how they use those patents before we pass judgement.
...they are looking towards the future.
If the US patent office allows you to patent knives and forks, RH is assuming that they will have to patent the spork to guarantee their future rights to use it without paying royalties.
This just shows how sick the patent process is at the moment. I only wonder why someone hasn't patented callable functions--prior art hasn't seemed to be much of an obstacle in the past.
G
There's something I do not understand about patents, like, how on earth can this be patented? Specifically the first patent:
"Dynamic and static protocol objects are mixed together at a server and included in a dynamic reply to a communication request made by a client application."
Ahhhhm, so a client requests something and a reply is made that is partially dynamic and partially static? So, like php then? Like perl cgi pages? Like any reporting engine ever written?
And, check this out, step by step explainations of how the code works. This shit only exists to keep lawyers happy.
Don't get it.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
Intel, IBM, Sony, Philips, et al file for thousands of patents every year. I say go for it, Red Hat.
You are in business to make money. Do what you have to do. That's reality.
It's what they do with it. I hope redhat sticks to the open source model, but if they need revenues to remain in business we may see them be forced to "villify" themselves. They already seem to at least try to do a lot of good for the opensource community, pushing linux in schools, donating training resources... I think we can cut them a little slack. Yea, I know slippery slope and all that.
But RedHat is a publicly-traded company now, so it has the same "duty to the shareholders" that every other large corporation in the U.S. has. Hence, I have a lot less faith in the company regarding the use of stuff like software patents only for Good. In short, I won't be surprised at all if they use these patents to smack down other commercial Linux distributions, all for Profit at Any Cost.
Only if a Good Guy retains a controlling share of the company would that not apply.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
I don't even like redhat linux. At all.
But, as much as I dislike their product, I just get the strange feeling inside, that their company isn't run by the complete and utter assholes we see everywhere else.
To suspect them of pulling any dirty is just damn wrong. Maybe it's just me wanting at least one company out there to be ethical, some really corny wishful thinking on my part, but what have they ever done to you? They deserve an an apology.
Besides, they might be able to stick it to M$ somehow...
I recall a few year back, this was discussed amongst GNU folks, and others as a mechanism to prevent proprietary vendors from locking 'us' (us being Open Source developers, users and businesses) out of important inventions.
I have only seen one 'iffy' thing ever come out of Red Hat (the RHN server, which is an in-house secret...though they appear to be helpful with the Current developers), so I tend to believe they have no intention of using this offensively against Open Source companies or users.
Besides, I seem to recall the GPL protects us against anyone integrating incompatibly licensed code into GPL software. TUX is part of the Linux kernel, thus it cannot be restricted or fees enforced on its use. Red Hat would have a bear of a time rewriting TUX independently of the kernel (Ingo could do it, of course), but the damage is done. Those inventions (and inventions they are...Ingo does really cool stuff, this isn't a one-click patent folks) are already in the development kernels. We (the community) already own these developments.
So, what I'm trying to say is:
Thank you very much, Ingo and Red Hat. I am very appreciative of the interesting inventions you have given to us. I forward to learning about them, using them, and enjoying the benefits they give us. And boy, that sure was clever of you to patent it, so that Microsoft will have a bit of trouble stepping on your toes in the future. Way to play hardball!
The GPL requires anyone holding a patent on the software to allow others to freely use/modify it.
From the GPL license:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
The only thing this patent prevents is from others creating proprietary versions of the technology in question; which, IMO, is a Good Thing(tm). In fact, in the thread about this on the LKML someone brought up that the FSF even encourages doing this.
Welcome to the club, RedHat. Don't worry, I still love ya on my cheap x86 servers. Your ISOs power my lot. I would hate to waste my Macs for the same job. However, the Xserve is an appealing option for the future. Rack 'n Roll!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I wonder, if any, what impacts this will have on MS placing IIS 6.0 at the kernel level?
...but no I don't agree with software patents either. With RH first attacking other distros with their discount and now them placing patents on software...I wonder if we will see RH as the next MS (- the security problems and - the whole stealing software thing) in a decade or so?
What's the big deal? The GPL is pretty clear on this: So, Redhat can't use these patents in an abusive manner unless they're going to release this stuff in some kind of software that's released under a GPL-incompatible license.
Last i checked, Redhat had a policy of releasing software they write under Free Software licenses. So unless i'm badly mistaken, or Redhat is moving away from Free Software, which i haven't heard they were doing, then this is nothing at all to worry about.
Now, if redhat were going to announce they were going to start writing software and releasing it under non-free licenses, i would be worried indeed.
But for now.. Haven't you people ever heard of a defensive patent? Maybe a bit unecessary, maybe a bit worrying, but this isn't the end of the world.
- super ugly ultraman anonymous cowards filtered. if their comments aren't worth so much as a nom de plume why should i read them?
So Redhat has done some significant work on the TUX webserver and it's patentable. They should DEFINTELY file those patents.
Now don't get me wrong. Software patents are generally bad news - they are too long (even 10 years in software is an eternity) and a lot aren't even worth the paper they are written on. But for the software industry today they are part and parcel of developing software and protecting the work that a software company has put in.
Patents aren't like trademarks - there is no 'patent dilution' to worry about. So RedHat can be extremely selective about who is allowed to benefit from the patent (even free of charge) and who is never going to get a license. This is particularly important - MS has a vested interest in watching over a lot of the developments in the TUX webserver as TUX is the main performance competitor to IIS. If RedHat patents its best ideas, it makes a public record of the 'invention'. If MS patents something that RedHat came up with, yes, prior art may be used to fight a legal battle to have the patent nulled but that is considerably more expensive than simply patenting the good stuff first.
Now I look forward to the day when software patents last 3 years from filing (because I dont see software patents ever going away totally). I look forward to the day when all software patents are published PRIOR to the patent being awarded so that many eyes may suggest prior art challenges. But until that day comes, Free and Open source companies had better use the weapons at hand to protect their assets. And if that means filing patents so be it.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I'm glad I switched to Gentoo Linux before this...
Patent it before someone else does, or lose it.
Get a free ipod.
Amazon, Redhat and numerous others seem to be trying to get away with claiming software patents "to stop others doing it first".
Is there not a place for an independent third party organisation *committed to the freedom of software* that would hold these patents for these *allegedly pro-freedom* patent holders, but in effect give out completely free licenses to use the patents ?
Lawyers suck.
Too bad, so sad.
Gotta hand it to RedHat, they may have finally found a way to make money. In a world where most every commercial distro is loosing money (or barely floating along) by playing ball the old way, RedHat has turned to a new game it would seem. Here we basically have far and away the largest commercial linux distro. They have appeared to many to be the hero of the commercial linux world. Now they are showing they're not in this business to be anyone's hero (unlike Loki). They are in it to make money.
It reminds me of how MS came along in the very early days with dirt cheap prices and was basically the savior of the microcomputer world. before then nothing existed beyond Unix. Unix was EXPENSIVE! DOS was comparatively cheap. Microsoft seemed like everyone's buddy back then, before they started to charge exorbitant fees and put an iron-tight contract in their software in the form of a EULA.
Since RedHat is in this world to turn a profit (and make no mistake about it, offering your products for free isn't very profitable), they are looking at an alternative way to produce. Will they be the next restrictive MS, or is this simply a neccessary "evil"?
Slackware forever. Honestly, what else would you trust when it absolutely positively has to be stable, secure, and easy
senator palpatine reveals his true nature...
four-oh-four
Open souce .. mmmhmm. Welcome to the real world
If this is a counter action to be used against MS anti-GPL license then it really should be held by a well defined pro GPL party, such as the FSF.
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
Unfortunately, RH and SuSE seem to want to play in the big server world (e.g. with IBM and HP). Those companies have so many patents, it can become necessary to have your own to use as "bargaining chips". It's not right, but you have to do it to survive It seems like you have to wait and see how they handle licensing to determine their intentions. On the other hand, with their past involvement with the Open Source community, one would hope they might make their intentions clear now, with some sort of statement. An example of a company that opposes patents, but feels the need to file them defensively:
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/testimony/statemen ts / racle.statement.html
(I'm not sure this is still Oracle's position)
The drive behind obtaining a patent is first and foremost the need to match the number of patents held by another company in the same market, the company with the most patents wins... or at least has better odds of twarting potential law suits when the competitors stock price dips too low. So if you can split an "original" concept into serveral patents all the better. I'm not a lawyer, but this is the reason our lawyer gave for patenting our "original" technology.
-Matt
could it be used as in the exact oposite of M$'s "shared source" licenses? I.e., You can use these patents for GPL'd products only and not for profit. That would allow products such as Apache to use them, but they could sue M$ if they incorporated them in their software.
Just a thought.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
Hah!
These patents are wrong. Even if Red Hat doesn't ever sue anyone, they just add to the fear and confusion software developers will face when they go to implement similar concepts -- even in Open Source projects! And whose to say the Red Hat of 5 years from now, under new management, won't go and start suing projects that use these techniques now retroactively? This isn't a trademark..So they COULD do that..
Is Red Hat going to sign contracts with any software developers who wish to implement these techniques saying they WONT sue them in the future? If they don't, you HAVE to assume they WILL sue you sometime in the future, even if the current management has all the best intentions!
Trivial software patents are DEAD WRONG. These are trivial software patents. Red Hat is WRONG. They won't see money from me in the future, EVER unless they somehow alter this situation.
And the patent-for-protection argument doesn't hold water..All they'd have to do is publish these techiques in some public place (I'm sure one of the Linux journals would give them space for this) to ensure prior art is on record.
My guess is they want to get involved in the cross-patent licensing game... Which is simply evil in general and hurts OSS developers more than anyone.
In short, fuck you Red Hat.
Given that they appear to be the way of the future (even in Europe, the organised eurolinux campaign seems to be struggling to hold off the "overly enthusiastic" patent office), the Free Software community should definitely use them when they discover nifty algorithms.
As someone above pointed out, the GPL guarantees that any GPL-dependent organisation (such as RedHat) will have to license software patents on a royalty-free basis for GPL software. It would be better to license them for all DFSG-free code. Note that such a license would not apply if, for example, Microsoft took some *BSD code an incorporated it in Win2k, because it's no longer DFSG-free.
The only question then is whether you charge royalties to proprietary software firms for use of the patented techniques, or whether you exclude them completely...
Fixing copyright
and my cock is fourteen feet long; novel enough?
I think Redhat should Gilmore Patent these ideas. The Gilmore Patent was proposed by John Gilmore ( I saw him present this idea at a Foresight Conference ) Basic concept is that a Gilmore Patent is like the GPL of the patent world, once you Gilmore Patent something only companies who have Gilmore Patents (or no patents at all) may use the patent royalty-free.
The only thing that concerns me about this idea is that it seems like it might be easily circumventable, you could do something like set up a subsidiary that doesn't have any patents, and then funnel the money back to the parent company. Any IP lawyers out there have a feasibility assessment of this idea?
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon
Could somebody please explain to me why software should be excluded from patenting? If it's a legitimate innovation (i.e. not Microsoft "innovation") why shouldn't it be patentable?
It is a separate matter that the vast majority of the software patents are absolute garbage (like the (in)famous one-click shopping), but so are the patents in other areas (like Rambus, and that guy who patented sideways swinging...)
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be
"The United States of America"
II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.
If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.
V. For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.
No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.
Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the States, and while they act as members of the committee of the States.
In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote.
Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
VI. No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.
No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in Congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the courts of France and Spain.
No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the Kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine otherwise.
VII. When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.
VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.
The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.
IX. The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article -- of sending and receiving ambassadors -- entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever -- of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated -- of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace -- appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies commited on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.
The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, 'well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward': provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.
All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before presecribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.
The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States -- fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States -- regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated -- establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office -- appointing all officers of the land forces, in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers -- appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States -- making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.
The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated 'A Committee of the States', and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction -- to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses -- to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half-year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted -- to build and equip a navy -- to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men and cloath, arm and equip them in a solid-like manner, at the expense of the United States; and the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled. But if the United States in Congress assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper that any State should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the same manner as the quota of each State, unless the legislature of such State shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spread out in the same, in which case they shall raise, officer, cloath, arm and equip as many of such extra number as they judeg can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled.
The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the United States in Congress assembled.
The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six months, and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgement require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each State on any question shall be entered on the journal, when it is desired by any delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of the said journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several States.
X. The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled be requisite.
XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.
XII. All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pleged.
XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.
In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.
Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777 In force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781
old enough to set the table, old enough to pass the meat
Anyone notice that a good bulk of slashdotters have the similar simplistic moral values of George Bush? Every thing they dislike is 'evil' and of course we know who the evil doers are..
So i guess the question is... Should redhat be included in the axis of evil?
good times.
And the reason there's never any 'serious' threat to it is because it was damned well written, at least in legalese. ;)
;)).. And people like Mandrake users.
Anyway, I'm a less than avid RH user. I got hooked on them back in the day, and, well, you know how that is. I've currently got three boxes running it. I'd love to switch, but three boxes? Damnit, I don't want to go through that again (Hell of a lot easier to keep one distro - one download of sec updates.)
It always amuses me when people refer to RH as some sort of 'Microsoft' or 'Evil Empire'.
Right, considering the amount of stuff RH's given to the community? They don't deserve crap like this.
Ah well, most of the complainers are either source-zealots (Sure, I'd love to do non-binary as well, but I have these two things called a life and a 56k modem. I could get rid of one easily, but I'll wait for 'real' broadband rather than pay outrageous cable charges
You'd be surprised how many Mandrake users I've met that whine about RedHat. Heh.
Slackware is, well, Slackware. Debian? Where's the support? Mandrake installs everything including the kitchen sink. Got broadband? If not, don't try Gentoo. Suse is great if you've got a DVD drive and a few hours to select packages, if not, prepare for a few days and lots of disc swapping. RedHat, well, damnit, I can't say that I *want* gnome, and wish the darned binaries for half the critical things a Linux box needs weren't tied in to their gnome rpms.
Every distribution serves a purpose. Now, if only we could get elitist bastards to spread FUD against companies who deserve it..
An atomic look-up operation allows an application to find out whether a file is opened atomically based on whether or not the file path is present in a file system namespace cache. If not, the file open request can be redirected, avoiding or minimizing impacts to the scheduling of various operations involved in executing an application
Oh shit, I think I've stolen it a hundred times:
snip: class APalmCatCache; class ALinkMasterCache; /snip
RedHat has been proving time and time again that the bottom line matters more than free/open software. They're not true believers, and their work is sloppy. Stop supporting them and they might change their behaviour.
Debian rocks.
Patents baaaaad! Patents baaaaad!
Shut the hell up already. Freaking idiots.
The patents will never be granted because they don't represent original work. We can prove this by the fact that open source development consists entirely of chasing tail lights, and never involves doing anything original. We know that's true because Microsoft says so. Q.E.D.
``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
No. Trademarks can be abandoned (i.e., revert to the public domain) if they are not defended against dilution. Patents don't work that way. They can lie in wait for the technology to be more widely used, even if by independent invention. The most public instance of such a "submarine patent" is the GIF patent. Slashdot has also reported on BT's hyperlink patent. Ditto Rambus's SDRAM patents.
The only obstacles to late enforcement of a patent are public opinion and laws against unfair business practices. The latter is mentioned in the Rambus link above.
Yes, but the garden snail has the squid beat by 2 feet; so it's novel, but not *enough*
Very punny.
This is simply a bad idea. Patents are a bad idea in software, period. Some people have mentioned the possible "defensive patent" strategy, but it won't work in this case, and here's why:
(From the GNU GPL):
"Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
So Red Hat may NOT enforce (in a traditional sense) their own patent in regard to their GNU GPLed software, which is derivative of others' GNU GPLed work on the kernel, without violating the license terms and losing the right to distribute the kernel.
Also remember that public companies may change strategy or be bought out by a competitor. If cash flow gets tight, doubt not that scruples will go out the window and previously "good" companies will turn to the dark side for the sake of the almighty buck.
Fortunately, the GNU GPL prevents such bad behavior in this case, which makes the patent puzzling from a practical standpoint. Perhaps it's a "feel-good" proprietary fix for the less-informed shareholders?
One interesting point, though, is that the preamble in the GNU GPL doesn't quite match up with the license terms. It appears that a company could enforce a patent as long as the code is NOT derivative! So you couldn't write your own Tux equivalent, but you COULD modify the existing code. This is quite odd.
Checkitout. Linux is GPL. RH claims to have done this with Linux. GPL requires all patented code covered by it to be licensed freely to everybody. So if RH wants to sell their improved Linux, the patent will be free for all. The patent app is basically a publication... for all to read. Happy now?
Or of course RH might just distribute their patented code incorporated in Linux, but then you'll have the opportunity to finally test the GPL in court. Everyone who's written a line of Linux or utility code that goes on the RH CD gets to be in on it too! Joy!!!!
You can't lose here. Make the most of this good news.
This means that if RedHat designs any software and puts it under the GPL, we all instantly get free access to the patents, forever. Even if we want to re-engineer the solution using proprietary software.
Yeah yeah, I don't like Redhat linux. I never have. Whatever. They have been doing wonders for the Linux operating system. They bring a great product like Tux to the open source community and you are screaming about it! Look at the the bottom line they are looking at. Screw it and let them have a damn patent. They developed the software so they deserve to own the rights to the technology. Why does everyone always scream murder over someone trying to make a little money off their hard work? Sure, the idea of linux is to keep everything open source and "free". Damn. Why don't you just look at it like StarOffice? Hell, I don't hear anyone yelling about the StarOffice/OpenOffice partnership?
http://www.askthevoid.com
If you're opposed to (software) patents, I hope you won't limit free licensing to GPLed software. While it may be difficult to implement, mutual defense is the appropriate patent analog to the GNU GPL.
The intersection of copyright and patent opponents is smaller than either on its own. If you are in both camps, support them separately with copyleft and mutual defense. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, or something like that.
Software patents
The worst threat we face comes from software patents, which can put algorithms and features off limits to free software for up to twenty years. The LZW compression algorithm patents were applied for in 1983, and we still cannot release free software to produce proper compressed GIFs. In 1998, a free program to produce MP3 compressed audio was removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit.
There are ways to cope with patents: we can search for evidence that a patent is invalid, and we can look for alternative ways to do a job. But each of these methods works only sometimes; when both fail, a patent may force all free software to lack some feature that users want. What will we do when this happens?
Those of us who value free software for freedom's sake will stay with free software anyway. We will manage to get work done without the patented features. But those who value free software because they expect it to be techically superior are likely to call it a failure when a patent holds it back. Thus, while it is useful to talk about the practical effectiveness of the "cathedral" model of development(1), and the reliability and power of some free software, we must not stop there. We must talk about freedom and principle.
Get Firefox!
Maybe someone at Red Hat thought they should get a patent on it before some asshole from another company did. If Red Hat patents the technology they can let anybody or nobody use it - at least they have control. Some outside group might have gotten a patent on the concept and held it hostage, forcing all users to pay.
I'm not a fan of silly IP actions, but Red Hat filing for a patent is NOT the same as Red Hat preventing others from using the technology. There are occasionally good reasons for this stuff and you should wait and see what the company does before you jump on them.
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
Working within the IT industry is can be frustrating. If your job is to integrate and maintain technology, you will be dependent on vendors to produce that technology. Due to economy of scale, resources, the demands of R&D, and simply "how business is done", these vendors tend to be corporations. And eventually some of them are going to screw you over.
At this point it might be worth touching on the subject of morality. When something is labeled as "evil" it is a moral judgment. Something is opposed to one's sense of morality. One moral code often expressed within tech circles is functionality. Interoperability and functionality is a goal - anything that intentionally interferes with that goal is "evil". Business morality is often centered around profit. Anything that makes profit can be approved. Tech and business moral codes clash when technology is used to create a (often profitable) dependence on a product by limiting functionality and interoperability through technical or legal means.
Vendors will screw over the average tech worker when the company's moral code moves from a technical one to an aggressive business one. Take a look at Silicon Valley's history. It is chock full of techies starting a business, the business growing, and then the techie is pushed out as the business-types move in. The only question is how aggressive the business types get. It is a part of how corporations work and how "business is done." A company that is "cool" now can change based on who runs it and who decides on company policy and direction.
The double-cross might not even come from the trusted company in question. A company's assets (products, patents, and other intellectual property) often survive the company. The patent that is held "just in case" by the "cool" company of today can be sold off at pennies-on-the-dollar in tomorrow's liquidation and become a tool for its new owner's questionable, aggressive business tactics.
Why the distrust of Redhat? Because we almost expect a double-cross. Its history, nothing personal.
It may not be fair. But then, its not the game that we created. But the rules are well known. And Redhat should be very familiar with them by now. Knee-jerk journalism aside, Redhat should be prepared to explain their situation, their tactics, and provide a system of assurance to their customers and community they work with.
Unless, of course, their moral code has shifted.
Ok, Red Hat's going to be the next microsoft at this rate.. right? I mean.. patents.. didn't they have odd licensing and odd software in there somewhere? A big company for the whole desktop thing and such.. least, I could see it going there. That's right. Competitive upgrades from other linux distros. That was bashed a bit on the register, I believe..
But now all are complaining about how it's patenting things.. Well, that may be, but going by the title of the patents, they look like they could be actual legitimate patents. Nothing like the whole wheel thing that went on.
So.. they might be on the way to proprietary code, closed source, and all that.. Well, GNU will keep it open. and we all like open because, unlike how Micro$oft does it, it allows people to fix bugs and work with the code they're given. So.. it's not bad there, either, imo. Or at least it can't be.
So.. give Redhat a break. They have to make money some way, and this may be what works on their end. Even doing what it's doing, it seems to be being nice.
Just my few pennies. But what do I know.
-DrkShadow
fucking script kiddie.
Well I have tried almost all Linux distributions since 1995, And I have yet to see all the bad thing I hear about RedHat.
.rpm's ALL the time, I have not yet screwed my system up!
They say RPM is bad, compile your own, yet they talk shit about Slackware... wtf?
Seems like everyone just wants to bitch about somebody else's hard work.
I use
I compile my own packages ALL the time, I have not yet screwed my system up.
I am a RHCE holder but I prefer Slackware, just because it is the 1st Distro I ever used, but guess what I'm composing this on my edHat 7.3 system hehehe.
I feel if RedHat patents something that they have created, then so be it. More power to them!
I just hope that it will not be abused, and so what, if it turns out that it sucks, well all those non redhat fans have no gripe right? and I am sure that all the redhat fans will keep defending redhat.
Dont waste your time with all this crap, just use the damn distro that you like, and leave well enough alone ok guys?
And if no disro is good enough for you, build your own damn distro like I did, and to hell with them all
tollieman
I'm not going to defend these patents, but keep in mind that the claims are ANDed together, not ORed. Don't read the first claim and exclaim that Red Hat patented reports. It patented a static HTTP server that uses an object cache in an O/S kernel and meets the characteristics of all twelve claims.
The question is, as with all patents: is this a novel, non-obvious (to one skilled in the art) leap from the existing prior art? I doubt it.
I'm not going to defend these patents, but keep in mind that the claims are ANDed together, not ORed. Don't read the first claim and exclaim that Red Hat patented reports. It patented a static HTTP server that uses an object cache in an O/S kernel and meets the characteristics of all twelve claims.
Actually, the items in an individual claim are ANDed, but the separate claims are ORed.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Red Hat is the Microsoft of Linux..
Why? Because they're successful? Doesn't that make the USA the Microsoft of the world?
Depending on what they use the patents for, is really the question. If they use Patents the way they are currently being used, to lock out competition and make software technology come to a stand still, obviously we have to re-evaluate RedHat and perhaps stick/migrate with Debian only installations or other distro's that do not patent.
Software Patents/Patents are a bad idea. They will eventually cause economic wars, the US I believe will not be able to win.
Unless of course, we threaten to bomb our neighbors into accepting our market laws, which by thier very structure of patents, will lock them out!
Patents and other "arcane" methods of market monopoly building will not be accepted, mark my words, by our up N comming third world friends.
China and Russia will not be bullied. They will take advantage of the fact that corporations in the US and Europe can only devote a small segment of thier populations to scientific and technological research. Simply because patents do not allow large numbers of people to advance a problem or develop a market to maturity as quickly as those markets that do not recognize patents.
Imagine cures for cancer accelerated for example by CENTURIES simply because China allows and shares information economically without restrictions, to billions of potential researchers, investors, and government research institutes. Compare this where any advance in technology in Biotech for example in the US only a handful of people can work on a problem legally.
I predict the best software advances in computer technology will come from the far east in the 21st century.
Lets not forget, where we got Linux from. It came from outside markets that do not recognize software patents.
I don't think this is a cooincedence and I predict advances in software technology will advance far more quickly outside those markets and countries which do not recognize patents.
-hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Is this you?
Why would a Gilmore patent alienate IBM and HP? They just have to pay license fees, like with a regular patent. And since they are a commercial entity, they can afford to. The Gilmore Patent does not put any more restrictions on its use that a regular patent, and it is most definitely not "religious."
man, if that wasn't the biggest waste of breath I've ever heard on slashdot....oh, wait, it was.
It has been discussed on slashdot before that if Open Source advocates held software patents that other software patent holders want to use then cross licensing agreements might be set up allowing Open Sourcerers to duplicate the functionality of those programs that you say are forever off limits. Well I say we need more software patents to be held by free software friendly parties as well as a legal mechanism to pool those patents and use them as bargaining chips.
"...secure, and easy"
Absolutely nothing. NT is easy. OpenBSD is secure. "Easy" means you don't have to think about it--it makes mistakes (insecurity) just as easy.
Security is somewhere between mind-numbing and mind-bending.
What would the ramafications be of requiring the use of technology described by a patent to be open source? Microsoft would have no way to incorporate a kernel-based web server into their IIS product without opening significant amounts of source code to the public.
Oh shit! I forgot to click "Post Anonymously"...
Patents were concieved as a trick to get inventors to disclose their inventions or trade secrets instead of keeping them secret (no source code). Patents are a system where an inventor discloses an invention, and receives a monopoly for a period of time on the implimentation disclosed.
The general idea is to promote the exchange of ideas. In most cases, once the idea is disclosed there is always another implemtation (that doesn't violate the patent) that can be marketed or disseminated.
The only value of a patent is to recognize the inventor of a significant concept and disseminate that concept, while giving the inventor a lead time to exploit the idea. They are usually not a barrier to entry in most markets, depending on the field concerned in the way that copyright is. A more significant barrier is expertise in the field.
nothing is real
I should've gotten a Law degree and a CS minor.
Looks like the New Revenue Stream will result from applying for patents and sueing everyone that uses the protected technology without paying for it.
I have this shirt in my closet (well, it's in my laundry basket right now, but you get the idea) that I'm rather happy to have. I got it from ThinkGeek a couple years ago. It takes a rather cute shot at the USPTO, with a certain someone's signature emblazoned under the text.
"All good things...", I suppose, though I still can't get the "skunky beer" look off my face right now. I hate when reality sticks its nose into my idealism.
I wouldn't be doing unless I was *convinced* this was the only way to do things in the short term, and that generic GPL use would be granted.
First thing: whenever I see someone take an action they would normally be stringently against due to "short term" considerations, alarms go off in my head. In my 22 short years, I've noticed that short-term gains made against principles can cause long-term problems. You're almost certainly far wiser than me about how the "real world" works, but something about the whole thing just seems... off, I dunno.
Second thing, potentially exposing my lack of understanding about certain patent-related issues: It's my understanding that if a patent is not defended by the holder, the protection may be ruled unenforceable later. This is partly the reason for many of the stupid patent fights, and the raison d'etre of several companies that do nothing but purchase and "offensively defend" patents. I imagine some legal beagle over at RH came up with a great answer for this, but would allowing distribution of code implementing the patents under the GPL potentially allow certain competitors to later challenge the validity of the patent protection by arguing that early free distribution of said code indicates a lack of concern about patent protection? I have some trouble explaining precisely what I mean, but could there be a potential conflict between the aspects of the GPL meant to ensure unfettered, open distribution of code and the patent system's requirement that patents be defended if the holder intends to control use of the patented technology or process?
I think the answer is "no", as I don't recall hearing any limits on how a patented technology can be licensed, and I think my above concerns are unwarranted due to the intent behind the GPL; it wouldn't be as if the patent-implementing code would be released as closed-source without legal raising hell over other implementations of the code.
Or is this exactly the intent; patent code, license it under the GPL, and go after any patent implementations that aren't derived from or released as GPL code?
Lots of meandering questions and thoughts, so some clarity from a knowledgable person would be wonderful.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
"Screw" other Linux distributions? Wow.
Of course, RedHat has to *compete* with other Linux distributions, but "screw" them? I seriously doubt it.
Red Hat is not my favorite distro (although it is one of several that I use), but It's a pisser to see all the irrational, unfounded RedHat bashing that goes on.
Red Hat is one of the biggest Linux distributors (probably *the* biggest here in the US), and many people seem to feel that just because they are big, they are also evil.
First of all, TUX (and most everything else that Red Hat has added to its Linux distro) is licensed under the GPL, and others have pointed out that the GPL provides that a free license effectively be granted for any patented part of the code. (The method and apparatus are still protected, which gives them the protections they are trying to get against MS and others using the technology in a proprietary product). On this point alone, any fears of Red Hat screwing other Linux distributions seems little more than paranoia.
Red Hat is by no means a perfect company (is there such a thing in the real world?), but they have gone out of their way many times to help and assist the goals of Linux and open source in general. Of course doing something for Linux as a whole also benefits Red Hat, but because of the nature of open source it also benefits everyone as well.
Many people don't seem to realize that because they are bigger than most Linux distributors, they have some extra reasources that others don't have to apply to general causes. For example, pushing Linux in education, lobbying to fight really bad laws like the DMCA and the Hollings Disney protection act, providing the credibility and support to get Linux into large corporations, and many other things that in the end will benefit everyone in the OSS world.
Moreover, Microsoft has shown the ability to steal ideas from others. Software patents may be bad in general, but Red Hat is actually acting responsibly to protect IP that they've licensed under the GPL. Assuming the patents are valid, which I'm admittedly not in a position to evaluate, this will give them the ability to further protect the ideas in the GPL'd code from abuses by MS and others while still making the technology transparently and freely available to the open source community. Because the code is GPL's, the patents are actually a benefit rather than a liability.
You should have written Software Patents = = Bad because you mean to say Software Patents are the same as Bad. But instead you assigned Bad to Software Patents which is the criticism of your comment that a couple replies to you pointed out!
The concern I have is, Will the GPL protect someone who impliments a kernel extension of the same nature as TUX in say Darwin. Will RedHat try to go after Apple? Or does the GPL protect Apple in this case even though it is not using GPL'ed code, just concepts from GPL'ed code.
It seems to me like the "method and apparatus for atomic file look-up" is an old technique. See, for example, Stanford's Cache Kernel, which is entirely built around the idea of the kernel keeping caches (address space translation, file name translation, etc.) and faulting to user mode processes.
First off: I trust you, Alan, if for no other reason than you still have the bullocks to post here. Call me a lemming, but if you're down with the patent thing, then I'm fine too. I don't like patents, yet I have my name on 17 pending patent applications. I'm not sure they'll pass muster, and I'm not sure I'll care either way. They were filed a while ago, when I worked for a very pro-IP company.
Having said that, it *is* a little weird that Red Hat is patenting stuff. The suits want CYA, the lawyers want accountability, but the guys that wrote the stuff you distribute don't like patents. I didn't either, until amazon.com decided they could patent my finger acting upon a microswitch in the mouse on my desktop, then I realized that everyone had better patent whatever they can before the unscrupulous money weasels got their act together. We're well into the 3rd act.
IM(V)HO, patents aren't that great unless you're on the right end of the licensing agreement and I wish we didn't have to have them all. But we need to have them, if only to keep the bottom feeders of the world from reinventing the tux wheel and then patenting it out of existence. If I invent some novel "Method and Apparatus for the Extraction of Novel Nutrients from Common Playground Sand..." and then GPL/BSD/give-it-to-charity, can someone then patent a slightly reworked version and sue me for doing OSS work? Is that the precedence under which the license I pick wants to be tested? So, completely non-hypothetically, is Red Hat taking the so-called pre-emptive strike here?
I'm hoping -- as a very long time RHAT user, and a stockholder as long as there's been stock to hold -- that you guys will use some clout and cash to take out a patent or fourteen for the "good guys", as nasty as the conept sounds. If you have a claim to something novel, than have at it, I say, as long as you give back the key bits to the world. If you don't, then someone else will just patent it and hold onto/license it. So what sort of use to regular humans will be granted with the rights given RHAT by the USPTO? Does your company have a policy for this sort of thing?
I don't mean to grill you, but it *is* weird. Maybe I should think about patenting the process by which an OSS, for-profit company patents new ideas in order to give back to the world by protecting those ideas... :-)
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
hypocrits
The people in the streets
Are talking loud and clear
THey don't want you to profit
From work you hold so dear
They don't like stingy coders
Who want to feed their kids
They just want big free handouts
And lots of gay porn vids
The people in the streets
Are saying to the masses
Redhat and Microsoft
Screwed us in our asses
Bill Gates may be the devil
But RH is his pawn
And both MS and RH
Both have to be gone
Stallman's in his corner
Saying GNU/this GNU/that
But all of us just know
That fucking dude is fat!
Taco's in seclusion
and BSD is dying
everyone is losing
and cowboy neal is lying
someone please god help us
we know it can't be true
redhat's filed patents
now there's nothing we can do!
Why not switch to SuSE or Debian ?
SuSE and Debian Work more accurately than Redhat I think...
Bit of trouble ? With only a small fraction of their cash reserve they can buy out RedHat ....if it comes to that. Neither Ingo nor anyone else will be able to stop that. You can give it to them to "think out of the box".
Doesn't any one realize that the only reason they have affordable hardware to install Linux and GPL software on is because there is a marketable business that hardware manufacturers can survive off of. Freeware is not marketable. There would be no $20 NICs if there weren't Compaq and Dell to buy them by the tens of thousands. Linux is an awesome privilege. Yes, privilege! The only reason it exists is because there are people who want to contribute to larger community and give away their unique creations. GPL developers can't really afford to develop much hardware and if they do they can't do it for a mass market, but there are a few people who write code. And then they give it away. Great! that's really nice of them. Thank you! It doesn't help the economy, but it's very generous. Then there is all the hacks who claim that the GPL is god's gift to man and they don't contribute a thing. If you spent any time in the real world you'd realize what money meant to the average man and you'd realize that a company couldn't run on good intentions. Since we live in world were you need money, don't you need to find a way to make it? Red Hat has developed a product or two that somehow manages to break free of the GPL and good for them that they can make some money for a change. Who paid for your computer? How could you afford it? Why was it so cheap? How do you contribute to the free software world? What do you know about macroeconomics? You sound like a bunch of children boasting about whether Chuck Norris could kick Bruce Lee's ass. Open up your eyes and smell the coffee percolating down the cubicle... Oh wait, you can't run a business when you have nothing to sell. So that must mean we have a bunch of hypocrites or a bunch of starving artists.
From the text of the "Embedded protocol objects" Patent
> [0020] [...] implemented in a computing platform based on the computer operating system commonly known as "Linux"
Obviously this must read either ``operating system kernel'' or ``known as "GNU/Linux"''
He was using Visual Basic, not Java, you asshole.
nice to see even redhat patents are easily considered OBVIOUS ideas.
Guys, Guys,
/linux/net/tux,
If you read the linux kernel mailing list you'd recognize Ingo, c'mon...He's one of our famous and beloved linux hackers!
Check out the source directory
/*
* TUX - Integrated Application Protocols Layer and Object Cache
*
* Copyright (C) 2000, 2001, Ingo Molnar
*
* main.c: main management and initialization routines
*/
It's good that he's patenting it, let the patent system protect the good guys for once!
The problem is not that Red Hat filed for the patents - the problem is that they could file for the patents.
Software patents are ridiculous - they are the work of ONE MAN who both pushed the idea as a practice and later became a judge and ruled on the legality of his own creation! . Can you say "conflict of interest"? Historically software was properly ruled out as being unpatenable.
RedHat is a tinv company compared to Microsoft, so I think the screaming, "RedHat goes to Redmond" is a bit premature. They are of course trying to compete with other distros or else they would not have offered those competitive upgrades for Mandrake and SuSE users. I don't think they are either as bad as some claim (rpm's etc) or as user friendly as SuSE or Mandrake. It's a company trying to make some money in fairly difficult times.
I really would wait and see what happens. If they start throwing cease and desists and legal suites around, that would be a better time to start an outcry.
Since this is included in a pice of software that redhat is licensing to me/you/anyone, we are allowed to use the software along the spesific terms of the license agreement.
Since linux and redhat is GPL'ed, we are allowed to use it in any derived GPL-software???
And so it begins, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I can't blame RedHat, they are in this for the business, you can't give away everything if you are going to make a profit.
But I can't say that I like these kinds of patents, the are not good for a free market, for healthy competition, nor for non-profit software or the users.
Something needs to be done.
There has been no official statement on this yet, and probably the final wording of the license isn't done yet, but in short, this will not be used against any open source projects or companies.
Software patents are evil, yes. But if you can't get rid of them, you unfortunately have to play the dirty game if you don't want to be sued for infringing on patents like "text in a window".
There are several things I totally dislike about Red Hat (such as their ultimately stupid choice of default desktops), but there are plenty of other things that keep me here, like the strong commitment to Open Source.
If that were to change, I'd be out of here the same day.
As long as you see my posting from a *@*redhat* address, don't worry about things like this.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
You CAN download suse isos, see below:
u x/ index.html
http://www.suse.de/en/support/download/suse_lin
They're going to use it to screw other linux distros.
Again (just with the patents on HTML filed by Amazon and the pop-under ad company) we are seeing the combination of business orientated capitalism taking over from free software. We need a body, or something incorporated into law, that keeps open source just that, open and free. I'm not sure how it would work but it needs thinking about otherwise the two worlds of capitalism and open-free software will continue to clash in this way
(http://www.e-consort.co.uk)
Fortunately geeks like you don't make the purchasing decisions at large companies that "matter". What really happens is a marketing exec from the software company, in this case it could be either RH or MS sets up a meeting or golf game with one of your company's VP's or CxO executives and they discuss and decide on the deal that way. Very little imput from the grunt workers on the IP assembly line is solicited. If the software isn't chosen that way then slick advertising picks up the slack.
If you think this is not the way it happens then how else can you explain the proliferation of MS software when it is so clearly not the best solution for all of the companies that use it?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
TUX is the main performance competitor to IIS.
Uh, no. That would be iPlanet, thttpd and Zeus.. Especially Zeus.
TUX is a cute proof-of-concept, and if RH can get some leverage over MS by patenting it, I'm all for it. But let's not kid ourselves about who IIS' competitors are.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
Folks... RedHat will stay a supported of the open and free just as long as it's profitable for them to do so.
They are a publicly traded company with a duty to maximize shareholder value. If you think that means giving things away they could be charging money for, think again.
Yes, they give away some stuff for free. Why? Because they want to? No, because they have to, or because it's in their best interests to do so (ie: Driver development for linux, etc)
As long as you see my posting from a *@*redhat* address, don't worry about things like this.
Yup. And Alan Cox. You guys are my barometer.
Too bad Linus is just interested in "the best technical solution". We will soon see the kernel polluted by patented fragments.
I would like to see some policy like the w3c did with rejecting extensions/standards which have been patent polluted.
I now distrust Redhat the Microsoft of the Linux community even more. Making money has nothing to do with dropping pricinples of free software.
Software Patents are evil and instead of working against them Redhat jumps on the train.
Flo(@rfc822.org)
Any thread that quotes the GPL will begin to attract more and more Karma whores as time goes by. Since as thread size approaches infinity, Goodwin's law (and its derivatives) limit the length of the thread. Therefore, GPL quoting will cause thread death via Goodwin's law.
So far, I've been reading all these threads, and they all say pretty much one of the follows:
"RedHat sucks."
"Software Patents are evil."
"The GPL requires that all software patents on GPL code have free licensing."
"Good for RedHat."
Right.
I'm a software engineer for a company that develops proprietary code on Linux systems.
I make money from software. Linux software.
Some of which have software patents.
Does that make me evil?
No, it doesn't.
Software patents are a good thing.
I spend, offically, 8.5 hours a day coding. (Unoffically, closer to 16-20 hours a day).
Why should I not be able to patent an idea that I came up with, while ensconced in front of my PC?
Moving on....
I'm no RedHat fan. Actually, I hate RedHat.
Not because they're RedHat, or they're big, or they make money from Linux..
My gripe with RedHat is that they release RedHat distributions without proper QA procedures. They fix "bugs" in programs that don't exist. They patched "ping" to do a DNS lookup on each and every ping request it sent.
They broke 'tar', so it'd generate 0-length real-files from symlinks, when extracting.
They used a development version of glibc in a production distribution.
The list is endless. That's my gripe with them, and I'm not afraid to admit it.
But don't diss them for trying to protect the intellectual property and hard work of their software developers.
Indeed, more power to them for it.
OpenSource is well and good, but, personally, I like to be able to put food on my table. And I don't even have kids -- if I did, I'd work for Microsoft themselves, if it was the only way to put food on the table.
Any competent expedition team needing to get to the top will inevitably discover the basic approaches and paths.
The first to go should not have the right to build toll gates on the path they took (much less fence in the whole mountain), any more than Sir Edmund Hilary should own the rights to climbing Mt Everest.
What the first climber should get is acclaim, and maybe a Nobel prize if it was a really significant climb, and of course s/he could print and sell copyrighted maps (without an EULA that tries to claim ownership of the mountain and charge per climb!). They could charge per climb for guide services, of course. And they could sell cruise'n'climb tourist packages that include luxury transport up the mountain. But blocking others from making their own way? No. That's not right. Especially not when it comes to intellectual problem mountains.
Besides, what is the last Mt. Everest scale software patent you've heard of? Bah! All this arguing about mole hills is pure BS from the legally-break-your-competitor's-legs school of competition. It's really sad.
Whatever RH will do with that patents; if they don't give them to other Lin-distributers freely, I will have bought RH for the last time.
It seems to me that NFS satisfies the major points of this patent. Beyond that, it's pretty obvious to a normal practitioner.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
You'll find that, in general, you'll make a complete fool of yourself if you actually read the posts that you're responding to.
The thread was about "performance competitors" to IIS. As lovely as apache is for many uses, nobody (including the apache authors) would pretend that it's anywhere near in the same performance league as IIS, Zeus or iPlanet.
And I didn't mention Apache at all in the first place.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
Isn't Apache Cocoon sufficient prior art to have this patent voided? They sure sound the same to me with Cocoon Sitemaps and stuff.
Software patents suck. Trade Secret law is sufficient protection for software ideas, since most people don't have time to disassemble the source code of others anyway.
The idea is very similar to the GPL. Maybe we need a general "patent GPL" - one which is not a "policy", which can be changed later, but a stronger assignment of patent rights to a GPL'ish foundation in defense.
Maybe it's time to revive the League for Programming Freedom, but along these lines.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Besides, I seem to recall the GPL protects us against anyone integrating incompatibly licensed code into GPL software.
Except that Linus has given a special exemption to kernel modules. Hence, no dice.