LWN on the Patent Encumbrence of SELinux

Anonymous Coward writes "LWN has a story about patents in SELinux. The article says: "Much of the actual work in the implementation of SELinux was done by Secure Computing Corporation (SCC). SCC, in its implementation of SELinux, used a technology that it calls type enforcement. As it turns out, SCC has a patent on this technology." Sigh.

Comments

Opposing views

[debrain]

This will be a case of GPL versus Patent law, then. Certainly the patenting and prohibition of distribution and use of SELinux is contrary to the necessity of redistribution and free use stipulated in (and forced adherence to) the GPL.

How does the GPL interact with patents? GPL is a copyright (copyleft) law, whereas patents are an exclusive monopoly. How does one separate them?

Certainly, given the code, we (by "we", I mean "you" the kernel hacker ... heh) could remove all references to this type checking, or better still, extend it into a derivative patent. The power of the GPL, even should it prove impotent in protecting us against unwanted patent license remuneration, still gives us the power to remove that Patented material and continue in our merry way.

Re:My IANAL conclusion

[sydb]

Please mod up anonymous coward parent. Or just read it:

Re:My IANAL conclusion
by Anonymous Coward on 14/06/02 11:55 (Score:0) (#3700092)
No.
From clause 7 at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

"If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."