SCC Statement on SELinux Patent Issues

Hawke writes "Secure Computing has announced a Statement of Assurance that they will not use the patents in question to limit the availability of SELinux. They continue to say: 'However, Secure Computing does not extend the Assurance to software that merely interoperates with SELinux, or is merely included with a distribution of SELinux.'" The original story was here.

Comments

So they've effectively nullified the GPL?

[Tony Hoyle]

The GPL states that as long as I put my own code under GPL I can use any other GPL code without restriction - thus enforcing the freedom of free software.

Patents directly nullify this - with SELinux I can't modify it and make my own distro, or take the good bits of the code and use it in my own GPL project... making SELinux essentially proprietary.

type enforcement

[Alien54]

You can find information on type enforcement here:

http://www.securecomputing.com/index.cfm?sKey=738

As it turns out, this is the problem child. SCC has a patent on this technology, and seems to have used it in SE Linux

hrmm their statement has a typo in the patent

[Vicegrip]

number: 4,6211,231

It doesn't exist in any of the searches I made .... maybe I made a mistake.

Any Linux copyright holder can stop this

[SurfsUp]

8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

Re:Any Linux copyright holder can stop this

[SurfsUp]

(Further to my previous post) Quoting from the preamble of the 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.

Now you think that would be pretty clearcut, wouldn't you? Nonetheless, in the case of RTLinux, RMS did publicly state the patent holder could enforce his patent against users of non-GPL applications running under a modified Linux system containing code subject to the patent, without violating the GPL. Go figure. That doesn't sound like 'everyone's free use'.

In the case of the RTLinux patent, luckily a workaround was found, which is even superior to the patented method, so the question of whether the patent holder really was violating the GPL became moot. But, not too surprisingly, here is almost the same thing come up again. RMS needs to take a position.

Comment from Alan Cox

[Russell Coker]

Here's what Alan had to say on the matter:
The assurance simply says you cannot use it. Using it for authorization
for applications, or services is excluded. That makes it useless
He seems to like it less than I do.

Oh well, it'll be good if this goes to court, having
the NSA (represented by the Justice Department)
defending the GPL would set a good precedent.

Re:Patents arent valid in all countries.

[Tony Hoyle]

Complex answer - some countries (such as the UK) have treaties which make patents enforcible in each others' countries (although such enforcement is apparently rare).