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

My IANAL conclusion

[autocracy]

Basically, patenting something in software and then GPLing it means you're the only one who can write the code that does that, but anyone can modify and redistribute what you've done. Kind of confusing, but basically it means that a certain method of doing something in software can now only be done if it's under the GPL - interesting.

I think that this also falls under the class of submarine patents. Either way, if I'm right in my conclusion, they can't do anything about it - you can't "unlicense" a GPL license; and it's non-exclusive, so anybody that has it can keep it going even after you stop offering it...

Summary: Chill out in the walk-in freezer!

Re:My IANAL conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Because so few people have actually READ the GPL

[Rogerborg]

I'll post the relevant section here:

• 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. 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.

The situation that the FSF had in mind was a company taking GPL code, then injecting patented code in a attempt to de-GPL it and make it proprietary. The protection provided by copyright is the leverage that enforces this.

What they didn't apparently consider was a patent owner voluntarily providing code (that they have the copyright to) under the GPL license. However, I think (I hope) the license is clear enough that if the code is GPL, it can't be retracted (even by the copyright holder) or restricted by patents.

IANAL, but I bet this is giving some FSF lawyers pause to consider whether they need an explicit clause in the GPL to cover this.

Legal implications of this ?

[o'reor]

This, along with the RedHat patents in the Linux Kernel, rises a series of good questions :

• how are those patents going to benefit the companies that filed them ? It's mainly a closed-source word out there, how are they to prove that a competitor used the same technology in a closed-source product ?
• it does not appear to harm the free software community for the moment, but what later ? What if those components are no longer distributed under a free license ? SE Linux raises the problem with the explicit mention being removed from their pages, as mentionned by LWN.
• isn't it just a problem with the US patent office, who are overloaded with work, who do not always check the validity of a patent with regards to prior art, and the US legal system which allows lawyers of big companies to blackmail and racket smaller companies on unfair patent claims ? See this site which refers to a previous /. post on the subject. I personnaly think that kind of situation is an incentive for RedHat and SELinux to spend big bucks on patents.

I clearly don't see the free software community benefiting from this situation. Individual programmers will have to face both the possiblity that a rogue company sues them unfairly for patent infringement, and the possibility that another company, owning patents on parts of free software, changes its attitude towards the GPL and decides to un-GPL their code and go proprietary.

Say "thanks" to US lawyers and Powers That Be for allowing that nightmare to come true.

Re:Opposing views

[Marasmus]

Yeah, it's a patent-law versus GPL thing, but (at least to me) it appears to be cut-and-dry. Linux existed, with its use of the (L)GPL as its license. SCC held their patent and chose to modify Linux to make use of their technology. They are a 'consumer' of Linux, and Linux is NOT a consumer of their technology. They are, before any consideration of patent law is considered, required to comply with the GPL in regards to adding anything to Linux.

So they (we assume consciously) chose to work their code into Linux and redistribute it. This action implies intent to comply with the GPL. Considering the specific requirements of the GPL in regards to patents (must be royalty-free for ALL users who can receive the distribution), the only logical conclusion to draw is that SCC aggreed at the moment of distribution to permit use of their patent within Linux as royalty-free to the public (which includes individuals, governments, deities, and businesses alike).

it's a fairly a->b->c sort of thing. The only thing assumed is that SCC had the conscious intent to comply with the GPL... If they never intended to comply with the GPL, then this whole point is moot and they are in violation of the license! This certainly isn't a rocket-science concept to understand.

So what are our outcomes? (1) SCC provides royalty-free use of their patent in SELinux, (2) SCC withdraws their code, (3) SCC tries to play hardball by requiring licensing while violating the GPL and tries to fight the GPL in court. The likelihood of 3 doesn't seem too likely.