Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Torvalds Says Linux IP Is Sound

Posted by timothy on from the dear-darl-let's-call-him dept.

An anonymous reader submits: "In an interview with CRN, Linus Torvalds says he's confident there won't be any IP problems discovered in Linux. In fact, Torvalds, says he was extra careful with issues like the IBM Read Copy Update code."

12 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. Say what? by The+Bungi · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In fact, Torvalds, says he was extra careful with issues like the IBM Read Copy Update code

    I thought he didn't care? As in "I don't want to know what we're putting in, don't tell me"? And now he was "extra careful"? Or is this some other type of IP he's referring to?

    1. Re:Say what? by xyote · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Linus was saying he was extra careful because he knew the RCU patents were owned by IBM and wanted a clear license to use the patents from IBM. What he doesn't know is there is a prior patent, 4,809,168, that is in the public domain so Linux, or anybody for that matter, doesn't really need a license for RCU. Even SCO could implement RCU without a license from IBM.

    2. Re:Say what? by stwrtpj · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I thought he didn't care? As in "I don't want to know what we're putting in, don't tell me"? And now he was "extra careful"? Or is this some other type of IP he's referring to?

      He was referring to two different things. The "I don't want to know" bit is about patents, which is a totally different animal from IP and copyright. Knowing about a patent ahead of time is tantamount to being tainted by the patent, and if the patented technology shows up in Linux, you're liable for triple damages because you knew about the patent and it went in anyway (under the US system anyway). You cannot check for patents because of this problem.

      IP and copyright are treated differently under the law. There is a little more leeway in these cases. Simple copyright infringement can be handled by stopping the infringement, especially when it can be shown via an audit trail like the kinds that exist for the Linux kernel that the infringement was not malicious or with forethought on the kernel maintainers (i.e. they thought they were getting code whose use was free and clear).

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
  2. RCU code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. SCO's lawsuit is about misappropriation of trade secrets
    2. RCU is a patented technology
    3. Patents are publicly viewable
    4. Therefore, RCU cannot be a trade secret

    I don't see any way SCO can have a claim unless the RCU code that IBM donated contained SysV code or code derived from SysV. I seriously doubt IBM would be stupid enough to do that.

    Anyway, since trade secrets are no longer protected once they are publicly revealed, no one should have anything to worry about except possibly IBM.

  3. Linus being naive? by geekee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When Linus says a contract dispute between IBM and SCO has no bearing on Linux, I think he's being a bit naive. If the code IBM submitted to Linux was a violation of that contract, in addition to damages IBM must pay, a court may place an injunction on shipping Linux, or force Linux users to pay damages as well, depending on the wording of the licensing agreements in the distros being used. Of course this may be pessimistic thinking, but it's not an impossible scenario. Also, if IBM is found in violation of their contract, thats ammunition to pursue further lawsuits against other Linux companies and end-users.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  4. Open Source by brownaroo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If a programming project is open source, with an uncontrolled number of people working on its, whats to stop someone comming forward saying I changed module x with code/ideas I stoll form company y in an IP case.
    I know things like GPL try to address IP with open source but have their been any big court cases concerning IP on open source Software to test thing out? (forgive me if I an not aware of some big case, that 99% of everyone always knows about)

    1. Re:Open Source by titzandkunt · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Someone - anyone - can say that they hacked trade secret/patent protected/copyright code into, say, the Linux kernel.

      Unless these claims are matched in the version control and change logs, they'll have a hard time proving it.

      T&K.

      --
      Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable...
  5. Re:The circle is complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I can't imagine that anyone would have compared IBM to Luke Skywalker in 1977. In fact, wasn't IBM the evil empire at one time?

  6. Re:The circle is complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You haven't seen Episode III yet. Luke's terrible twos were pretty terrible.

  7. Re:Outcomes of the SCO trial by isorox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    you'll have to find obscure sites and download the latest kernel before it gets locked down.

    What? /usr/src? 6 versions of the 2.4 kernel on 3 different boxes, not to mention tons of CD's I've collected over the years. But yes, you are right about reputation.

    I thought that linux would simply have the offending code removed - the rest of the code is GPL's and I could release "isoroxix" tomorrow with the same non-sco code. Linux wont go away, and even if it did there's always HURD :D. Moving in on the desktop might take a little longer though.

  8. Re:I haven't done more than peek at the kernel sou by lspd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only thing that shows up being even close between the Linux kernel and the versions of Unix with source available is what seems to be a derivative of malloc and mfree in ate_utils.c

    ate_utils is/was part of the NUMA code for IA64. It has been removed from the latest development and prepatch kernels (it's obsolete, from what I've read.)

    There are some less interesting similarities between the signal handling code, but that's hardly remarkable. How many ways can you write a switch statement?

    The key thing to remember though is that SCO doesn't actually claim they wrote the code. They claim to own rights in code that IBM wrote. I would bet that it's safe to assume that a detailed inspection of AIX and Linux 2.4.21 will reveal similarities. The question is, does IBM have the right to relicense code they created?

  9. IP is ImPrecise by quinkin · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Patent != Copyright != Trademark != Breach of Contract.

    Please, please, please can we avoid using the acronym IP? It is not at all a valid concept - these are all completely disparate areas of law and should never be referred to in the same breath without clarification.

    It is often used as a term that encompasses patents, trademarks and copyright - but if you ever hire an "IP lawyer"(sic) you will nearly invariably find that they only specialise in one or two of the above areas.

    Q.

    --
    Insert Signature Here